FOX TURN RIGHT BOYCOTT, PROOF OF SUCCESS, MARCH 11, 2013

BENGHAZI-TRUTH DAILY MEMO

Filed for Mon, March 11 /
Tuesday, March 12 2013 / Continuing
Bumped back to the top by request

TEA PARTY "FOX NEWS, TURN RIGHT" BOYCOTT 
GIANT SUCCESS  
FOX NEWS RATINGS DOWN A STAGGERING 22% FOR BOTH DAYS.
PROOF BELOW

Scroll down to the screenshots for the quick version.

UPDATE 1 (UPDATE 2 AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS ARTICLE): The Neilson ratings are in for Saturday, March 9, and by showing a general ratings drop of 21% for that day essentially confirm what we reported yesterday: The Tea Party FOX NEWS boycott slammed FOX NEWS, dropping it for those 2 days by 22%. 

In all reality, this should be a monumental accomplishment covered by all media. maybe the left snarks will chide FOX it, anyway. I'm confident FOX NEWS won't report it!   

FOR MANY PEOPLE, MEDIA SILENCE AND TIMID GOP BUMBLING ON BENGHAZI IS THE LAST STRAW. The message loud and clear to FOX: "Stop screwing around and start serving your core audience, or your core audience will take their business elsewhere."

People should also know how boycotts work. Just as boycotting a store is more than a popularity contest, the teeth of the argument lies in the downward hit on the store's profits, boycotting a TV show effects what the network can charge from their advertisers for air time: the better the ratings, the higher the price for the time, hence the huge amounts paid to air on Super Bowl. Fox is already down 50% of it's audience in 2 years. Can they afford another 22%, 28%, 39%, 50%? Can they charge big rates if no one watches at all? We'll find out soon enough, I suspect, by how they respond. 

By the way, as reported a week ago, this boycott had the support of Tea Party leaders around the country who represent more than 700,000 people. They delivered. The drop in FOX ratings numbers, on-average, hit that number just about exactly right. Let no one tell you it was anything but true conservatives who made this happen. Not only did it work, but we have a reliable operation, now, to do it as many times as we want, provided the Tea Party leaders support the boycotts again, which seems likely, since all conservatives are simply fed up with just about everything. We thank them for their support in this; In theory, whether FOX obeys its audience or not, this is stage one in turning this country back to the right. 

You can check the validity of the screenshots at this very reliable reporting site of Neilson ratings numbers:

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/category/cable-news/

As always, I give you the tools to prove the facts for yourself. Here is a free online percentage calculator, but you can use any and many are readily available. Just enter the rating number from any day on any show against the March 8 Boycott day numbers for the same show and you can calculate the percentage of the ratings drop. Always a drop, the boycott day never exceeds other day ratings.

http://www.percentagecalculator.net/


SCREENSHOT 1 shows Friday, March 8, 2013, the first day of the Boycott. You will note that the numbers in this screenshot are lower and sometimes considerably lower than any others. These screenshots were not cherry-picked for effect, but to give a reasonable sampling. 
(Click each image for a larger version for easier reading)

Here is the day before, Thursday, March 7. While the numbers drop across the whole day, this sample shows the prime-time ratings, where viewer numbers are strongest. The difference between Friday's O'Reilly, Hannity and Greta (from this point onward, O, H & G) of 2,382,000, 1,633,000, 1,309,000 and Thursday's higher 3,087,000, 2,256,000, 1,747,000 is a drop on the Friday Boycott of 22%, 38% (!)and 25%, respectively.  

Here is Wed, March 6. We see the difference between Wed and Friday - Friday's loss - is O = 28%, H = 29%, G = 23%. No, the pattern developing is not a trick of the eye, the drop on each night compared to Friday is more or less uniform  except for Hannity's Benghazi special at 38%, which we singled out particularly for the boycott, because we're not interested in smoke and mirrors and shiny objects designed to fool the carnival suckers, we want the GD Benghazi witnesses to testify and we want them now; 6 months of Obama secrecy and game-playing is an intolerable outrage and FOX needs to do its part or prove itself irrelevant.(also, though, liberals would be less likely to watch something that upsets them like proof Obama was not a good POTUS during Benghazi, so I would split the difference between the 22% and the 38%)

Tuesday, same thing, more or less, O = 18% difference H = 24%, G = 17%

Monday, March 4, the same, O = 22%, H = 18%, G (a bad night for her regardless) = 9%

In the event that people say Fridays are different in the ratings, they can be, because it's date night, so shows/networks with a younger audience fluctuate wildly from week to week. Not so much for FOX because people tend to turn conservative from their stupid youth;  FOX's audience skews older, and are less likely to be going out on Friday, especially with kids at home. But guess what? Comparing the previous Friday shows the day of the week makes no difference - the boycott still smacked 20% plus from the network.

O = 21%, H = 22%, G = 20%

Rewind to Tues, Feb 26. Same thing. O = 18%, H = 24%, G = 10% (another bad night for Greta generally)

You will see there is a pattern of uniformity, on-average, in the drop between all other nights and the Friday boycott ratings, averaging around a roughly 22% drop on the boycott day of Friday, March 8, 2013.

Something else to be noted is that while liberals and moderates also watch FOX, Hannity, who draws the largest proportion of conservative viewers, takes by far the biggest hit from the Friday boycott. This demonstrates, again, almost conclusively, that the ratings effect was generated by angry and dissatisfied conservatives walking away. Bear in mind, too, that liberals were trying to artificially inflate FOX's numbers to keep FOX from becoming a greater threat by moving right, and their efforts were simply clearly overwhelmed on a massive scale. 

EDIT: The ratings for Saturday, March 9 are in and proves the success; the second day of the boycott, Saturday, also showed a 21% - 22% drop on average. To any reasonable mind, this proves it: the boycott was successful beyond anyone's wildest dreams and we can do it again and again and again until FOX gives this audience what it wants.


The week before the Boycott, prime-time
1,375,000.

A week later, On the second day of the Boycott: 1,088,000

A total loss on the 2nd day of the boycott of 287,000 viewers is a second day loss of 21%.


Do angry conservatives mean that mean Ailes was correct to steer the network to the left? No, because as the demographics show, FOX's audience relies heavily on older viewers, and proportionately the older viewers lean way to the right. 

Additional points of interest: 1. Conservatives just made it clear that they won't hang around for FOX's hypocritical expressions of love, coddling them superficially while knocking their teeth out on substance. 2. We're going to keep boycotting, with longer day counts and with bigger numbers, until FOX meets our demands or conservatives realize they are happier without FOX and walk away.

Another thing FOX needs to bear in mind is that after every boycott, they are certain to lose a percentage of the audience that boycotted and lose them permanently; sampling from Facebook remarks and Tweets is that some felt a sense of relief not having to yell at a supposed friend every night for betraying them. As FOX allows this to continue by staying left  their audience will shrink until, hypothetically, they are battling CNN and MSNBC for moderates and liberals, and sharing their same pathetic, sewer-drain numbers, because the conservatives will have gone, and they proportionately make up the lion's share share of news talk generally anyway, just as talk radio is buoyed by conservatives seeking expression in a pop culture world that demeans them.

IMO FOX was quite stupid to let it go this far. Their audience now knows it has the power to make or break them, and will use legal boycotts like this last one to attempt to draw concessions, and this time we want more than the Benghazi witnesses - we also want to see Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his experts explain why a law enforcement official with the third largest constituency in the United States - 5 million people - and 30 years federal experience and 20 years serving his 5 million people found Obama's birth certificate to be a fake (the biggest non-secret in DC); we want FOX to get active as investigative journalists making life tough for Obama the way all reporters are supposed to make life tough for politicians; complaining with patriotic fervor of things which sound good but do nothing to actually put Obama on defense is unacceptable and those days are over. As of Friday, those days are over.

For a boycott organized in a week on social media started by a handful of people from a Benghazi internet site, bolstered by the immediate support of Tea Party leaders around the country representing hundreds of thousands, to dunk FOX's ratings by an average of a full, mind-shattering 22% across their entire broadcast day shows FOX is incomprehensibly vulnerable to the manifestations of audience dissatisfaction. My advice to FOX would be to straight up and go way right fast - really fast -  because when a situation has a security level this whisper-thin, control can be lost in a heartbeat.

We Boycott again soon. In the meantime tell everyone you know this boycott was amazingly successful and send them here to see and know the results with no question about the proof whatsoever.

MESSAGE FOR FOX: IMO your audience is now organized and holds all the cards, as has been entertainment tradition for all of history and as it should be. Your audience has tasted control and success in their expression of dissatisfaction to you. In my opinion the situation is plain: Do what they want or do without them. You are the Roman Gladiators, and the crowd in the Colosseum is about to give your ideological shift to the left a colossal  thumbs-down


UPDATE 2: The Tea Party made history this past week - REAL history, not screwing-around "ohhhh, Ahhhhh, isn't that interesting?" history. With a snap of their figures the Tea Party with no central governing force, just a date set and advertised, knocked FOX NEWS' ratings down by 22% and when the event was confirmed, in my opinion they stare into space for 30 seconds and go back to their same old habits. 

There is no way to win if victories are not celebrated and exploited. So far everyone seems to be waiting for someone important to tell them the good news because it's clear they won't believe it from me, the facts or each other. IMO, if you dio not celebrate this moment, don't dare ever open your mouths or go online to complain about anything - not ever again - because whatever befalls you and the nation will be your own fault for not seizing the moment when you had the opportunity.You have made history and only you can report it because FOX and thje MSM won't. You have to say it for yourselves. Rely on it.

UNDERSTANDING THE MEDIA, A LESSON FOR ACTIVISTS

BENGHAZI-TRUTH DAILY MEMO

Filed for Monday, March 4 & Tuesday, March 5, 
2013

WHY BOYCOTT FOX NEWS FOR 2-DAYS OVER BENGHAZI? Why do the victims matter? Why should you care about 4 dead Americans when millions die every day around the world from disease and suffering and a lack of hope? I'll tell you why: because if the picture that is coming together about the Benghazi situation is half as bad as it appears to be, your life may depend on it, and Benghazi is the only avenue of prosecution that stands a chance because it is the only one that has been made legit through televised hearings and has champions in Congress. And the way things are shaping up, November of 2014 may be too far away.

Media is my business, so in the pursuit of clarity I am going to over-simplify this for clarity and understanding, at the probable loss of making the case fully convincing. But being convincing is no help if the reader glazes over, and if the reader is unfamiliar with the history of world propaganda, the kinds of governments certain propaganda strategies serve and how it operates today, then the reader will glaze over. So here goes with the simple version:

EQUATION: SILENCING MEDIA CRITICS WITH THREATS + MYSTERIOUS DEATHS OF EFFECTIVE CRITICS + MYSTERIOUS DEATHS OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS + LIES ABOUT THE CAUSES OF THOSE DEATHS FROM TOP OFFICIALS = TEXTBOOK HISTORIES OF HITLER AND STALIN.

Now before you dismiss that as over-the-top, let me remind you what happened to people back then who did that. The elites in those countries were not stupid. Indeed, they may have been much more learned than you are now. Are you well-versed in the classics - because they were. Can you quote the great philosophers in the context to a discussion without referring to a source - because they could. Are you regarded at the height of knowing politics and fashion, entertainment and technology - because they were. And when they had made life more sensible by eliminating the voices of the people with dire warnings of horrors too incredible to be desirable, and relaxed into their easy chairs, they were but months later dragged from their homes into the streets which ran deep in their own blood. In our society, liberals should know that appeasing the dictator is never safe, because only the dumb are allowed to survive. Stalin killed as many as 60 million of his own people - let that number settle in - in part because he knew that intelligent people might wake up one day and oppose him, so many of the smartest people, brilliant enough to put him into office but not in his inner circle, were among the first to be killed.

So pay attention.

I cannot make you know or believe all the rumors and things I have seen over the years. But I can give you a publicly accessible smattering of very dramatic situations which even by themselves, each alone, should send sirens and shockwaves throughout the civilized world, because if America falls to tyranny, there will be no country left to save anyone else.

Most of this relies on videos as proof so if your internet connection is slow, ask a friend or take my word for it.


Recently, Bob Woodward was told by someone very high in Obama's administration that he would regret running a story against Obama regarding sequestration, and as far as anyone knows, as Woodward who brought down Nixon will tell you, even Nixon did not go that far. Woodward is an honored icon of Obama's own party, just as Stalin purged his own. Already see a pattern?

Then after and emboldened by Woodward, another famous democrat who has always been a party stalwart, who served in the Clinton Administration, Lanny Davis, came out with his own admission of exactly the same kind of threats from the Obama administration.

As early in Obama's presidency as 2009, now-retired Helen Thomas and others, media veterans all, called out the Administration at a briefing as being secretive and controlling, having experienced a degree of control and censorship of the media by a White House never seen in their careers. It appears that Obama is clearly doing whatever he can to control not just the discussion, but the people who participate, and that is called a tyranny and that's no joke. Once that is successfully managed a President can operate essentially with impunity and do anything he wants, like kill American citizens at-will with drones, which even the mainstream media has been forced to admit is something Obama is attempting to arrange.

Here's Helen Thomas and crowd - most liberal democrats - calling out the Obama administration for trying to control them and what they write and report on television news and newspapers. 

Never in a Presidency has an administration ever claimed that a news outlet was anything other than what it was. Yet Obama and his henchman did exactly that for a few weeks straight.

Now add to that the fact that Obama is working to arrange a legal situation in which he may kill any US citizen he, alone, without due process, deems as an enemy of the US by using drones - and refuses to answer if the law he wants will allow him to engage drones arbitrarily to kill American citizens on American soil.

Add the fact that Andrew Brietbart dropped dead at the ripe old age of 43 - to my knowledge exact cause unknown - and he claimed just before the election that he had evidence to take Obama down, and he died just before the election, days before he was to release the information, all of which has yet to see the light.

Add also this producer, reasonably well-known in some circles and no lunatic, and a Hillary democrat, who claims the inside word from the Clinton camp is Obama had Bill Clinton's best friend Bill Gwatney murdered to shut him up about Obama's shaky citizenship status.

And someone else from the same Hillary camp, who makes the same claim from a different operational perspective.

Here we have Hillary Clinton (and Obama, too) lying about the murders in Benghazi being caused by an anti-Muslim video. Interesting how she defends the filmmaker's freedom of expression per our Constitution but the man continues to languish in prison, his life in mortal danger every day he remains.

As I first reported in December, the talking point about the cause of the murders being caused by a video are straight from Libyan propaganda  delivered one day after the murders, even though that same Government claimed to not have a single suspect of the crime at that time - so how then could they have known the motivation? These two videos, Clinton above, and this, are alarming when put together because it very strongly suggests - almost proves - a collusion in the lie by the Obama administration and Libya. All this makes the fact that the Benghazi witnesses are missing under Obama, who after 5 months refuses to give the names to Congress, understandably extremely alarming.

So let's pause for a moment and take the opposition's point-of-view in defending Obama on this. Phrased differently and otherwise probably broken up into segments to avoid the effect the following has, amounts to this: "Just because Obama had a radical upbringing and associations all his life; a 20-year pastor famous for sermons with words like "God damn America"; is threatening the most esteemed journalists and censoring and trying to control they and all others; has been, with some significant credibility in some instances, accused of being responsible for the murders of politically effective opponents; wants to be able to electronically kill his own country's citizens at-will on a whim; and turned his back on an Ambassador and let him die and has hidden the witnesses - human beings like ourselves - from the world for five months, doesn't mean he is in any way following the pattern of Hitler."

To that remark I could only offer the following: I'm sorry - that is exactly how it appears.

I hope that was all sufficient and easily understandable enough. Conclusion: In my opinion Obama could be an extremely unstable and dangerous character who rose to power because his megalomania allowed him to project untruths with remarkably convincing authority. To Assume he is not such a person, IMO, repeats the very bad - and then manifestly un-learned - lessons of the past. The fact is this country and its 314 million people are more important than the very shaky ideological aspirations of one man and the heartbreak he may or may not feel if he doesn't get everything the way he wants it.

I suggest you all go to an older library and read books written before the internet on Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Nazi Germany. One such particularly strongly recommended book is, "Inside The Third Reich, Memoirs of Albert Speer" (one of Hitler's confidants), 1970. Do not trust revised quotes on the internet, where revising history is becoming rampant. I am expecting someday soon for Obama to call for the destruction of conventional libraries "to save our forests" and be replaced with internet "Truth Centers", so as to once and for all eliminate the written evidence of the horrific realities of the past dictators he may or may not exemplify.


As I watch him attempt to disarm the public and I study more pronounced quirks and idiosyncrasies - for example, he has dropped the "white man accent" from 2008 but still delivers his speeches with the same now-famous mechanical sine-wave pattern style, raising his tone nearing the end of a sentence, and finishing in a declarative form which suggests a man both uncomfortable with himself and one for whom every statement by him is to be taken without debate - anathema in a free society - and watch what he has and is attempting to do, the chronology, the approaches, the now-seeming paranoia, I grow concerned that he has spent much time reading the biographies and autobiographies of dictators and has filled the holes in his personality, created by his self-doubt as a youth of which he himself wrote, by creating a self-identity pieced together by parts of dictators' lives and personalities  that appeal to him. More about that some other time.

So what does that have to do with a FOX boycott? Because CNN, MSNBC and the networks will never come to us or make our arguments - they are essentially as monolithic and aligned in purpose as Hitler's grand design for a ministry of propaganda, realized. But FOX needs us. Indeed, their ratings have fallen in many cases almost 50% in the last two years. Two years ago, O'Reilly was over 6 million per night. He is officially down to 3.5 - notice he no longer cites the numbers, just says he "beats the competition", which is no accomplishment since the competition is diffused all over the cable bandwidth and FOX is the only so-called conservative network;  in theory, all conservatives should be watching, and now gets barely a fraction. FOX needs us, so if we can get them to understand that the drops in viewership are related specifically to our protests representing our displeasure, in theory, too, they should run back to us, just to stay in business. They need us more than we need them, but America needs both together badly. But we can no longer go to them - they have turned left, badly. If we sit and do nothing, that is what we will get now in return: nothing. So the boycotts are crucial. I doubt the first one will be as big as we need it. But then when we started the Twitter campaign I had no idea that we would be arguing and winning, one-on-one, against Fox host personalities, Congressmen, and getting support from a few personalities who are very well-placed. One of our members also has a tight contact inside one of the congressman's offices and has said they have been told by the office contact that our - meaning yours, too -  Twitter activity was 100% responsible for that Congressman to take decisive action regarding Benghazi. There are no delusions here - we're making solid progress, manifestly. So when it comes to FOX also, we can - indeed positively must - but try. The good news is even if we fail at FOX, it effects our continued progress on Twitter not one bit - Twitter effects FOX, but FOX does not effect Twitter; one of a few lucky breaks we can count on, absolutely.

Additionally, as an illustration of something that appears to be a partial case in the matter of FOX News, I show this other clip from "Network". Bear in mind, in the 50's though the 70's, controversial subjects had to be encased in a particular genre to be regarded as palatable for the audience. Racism and totalitarianism were often science fiction scenarios projected into the future as cautionary tales. Certainly if Paddy Chayefsky had written Network as a straight cautionary tale, Hollywood would have never produced it. Hence, then, the theater of the absurd "dark comedy" moments in the beginning and end of the sequence. But it's clear - indeed famous among the media for - being no joke in its final speech delivered by the character of Howard Beale, a newsman gone mad from the frustration of the world from which and to which he reads the happenings day in and day out, ultimately breaking down and, in twisted fate, becoming a prime time talk sensation. One can easily apply the truth of that speech - a sparse truth then, but a huge one today - to all the the media, realistically. I offer this to further press the need for the boycott, because I need not tell you how this applies, and it's easier to grasp the idea here than you watching me write about it: 

Roll up your sleeves. Let's honor the dead in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia by proving that their lives were not squandered, and that we learned the lessons of the causes of their murders and made the world a better place for it.

Remember, in times like this there are no neutral inactions;  You either fight the enemy, or you have joined them; you can't sit it out - the bleachers on the sidelines are already filled by the ghosts of the people who did not learn this lesson.

BENGHAZI-TRUTH PROVES WHERE THE "VIDEO" TALKING POINT CAME FROM

*****************************************

PROVED WITH THE VIDEO EVIDENCE:

HERE IS THE SOURCE OF OBAMA'S BOGUS STORY ABOUT THE 

BENGHAZI KILLINGS BEING DUE TO ANTI-MUSLIM VIDEO; FOX NEWS, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION

 OBAMA AND HIS ADMINISTRATION SIMPLY PARROTED - VERBATIM - THE DETAIL-RICH BUT ENTIRELY UNTRUE LIBYAN PROPAGANDA COMING FROM EASTERN NEWS/TELEVISION SOURCES MERE HOURS AFTER THE KILLINGS ,ON SEPT 12, 2012.

Fox News: If you don't think this is important, you need your collective head examined.

The video, above, is from news sources coming out of the Middle East, uploaded by Middle eastern news sources. Check the original upload date: Sept 12, 2012. This pre-dates when Clinton and Obama starting citing the excuse of the video as an explanation for the killings, and that timing suggests that Obama and Clinton were complicit with the Libyan Government in at least the cover-up.

Our pathetic media and leaders continue to ask and wonder,"Where did the talking points come from - the ones about the video that supposedly outraged the Muslim world?" It came from Libyan Government Propaganda - released mere hours after the Benghazi attack - which Obama, Clinton and Rice repeated to everyone including the United Nations by Obama himself.If you think it was a coincidence you're crazy; the world does not work like that, as everyone knows. 

Incredibly, this evidence was found easily by doing a specialized Youtube search of publicly available international news sources. This is something our media and politicians should have checked first. 

It is clear that the Obama Administration  appears to have been acting knowingly as the US distribution office of Libyan propaganda which blamed the US for instigating the killings of our own people. Interesting, it should be noted that worded differently, the part about blaming the victims for their own deaths is the same conclusion reached by the State Dept's own internal investigation which, in so doing, cleared itself. It's all coming from the same source: corrupt Libya propaganda sources.

Watch the video linked at the top of this article. Should this video, linked above, vanish from the internet, it will be replaced by our own copy which we will upload via the Fair Use Act. This is important.

ADDITIONAL 

The following may be dismissed by many as "internet conspiracy theory" and so be it. As someone with over 20 years media experience in competition-heavy NYC, at this point I could care less about the opinions of intellectually dishonest mainstream media. This includes FOX NEWS which pretends to be divorced somehow from the mainstream even though they have the highest ratings on cable, and who also manifestly ignore or even mock those issues which are truly politically damaging to Obama. Know it: FOX NEWS can be regarded, at best, as "Mainstream Media Light". IMO their posturing as anything else is an insulting con job to conservatives. The facts are what they are.

The Libyan talking points in the eastern television news reports are extremely precise and well-informed for the reporting on a "mob event" that occurred less than 12 hours before the Government made its explanation. They had supposedly in less than 12 hours pin-pointed a video which caused an outrage. But that video caused no mob protest and outrage, which suggests it had already been chosen to be the scapegoat "cause" of presumed premeditated murders by the Libyan government through terrorist operatives, otherwise the chances of all this hand-in-glove timing would be essentially physically impossible: too fast, too detailed for a Government claiming to have not even a single suspect from which to glean reliable information.

This probably explains why Obama and Clinton sent Rice out to repeat the bogus Libyan talking points. At least initially, it's clear they did not want to be found to be officially repeating the Libyan propaganda - which in-part accuses the west of starting the violence via an imaginary scenario which never occurred.

We continue to know that seven (7) hours went by in which Obama did not issue orders to help, but did apparently issue orders to stand down. There has been much speculation that Stevens was either involved in or became aware of gun-running sanctioned by the United States. 

Therefore, for Bengahzi-Truth, for whatever it may mean, there appears to be only one likely scenario now, as mind-bending as it may sound: This was a premeditated set-up to kill Stevens by the Libyan Government who had their excuses in place in advance, and the Obama administration was either complicit in the plan/murder itself or a cover-up after the fact. The Libyan government has too many of the usual unknowns accounted for less than a day after the murders for an outfit claiming to be unaware of who committed the actual crimes.  


The most alarming aspect of all this is that that all the surviving witnesses, flown out of Benghazi on a US C130, remain hidden by the Obama Administration after over 5 months - the most alarming fact after the murder since it reeks of a Soviet-style silencing of the witnessing (before you dismiss such a notion, never assume that "it can not happen here" - that is what the very well-educated German and Soviet people, who were well-read in the classics, art, philosophy and fashion, said before the streets ran deep in their own blood). Even Congress does not know who the survivor witnesses are are, where they are or why, though Congress has started to make it clear they're getting impatient on this matter, particularly, though even that seems Johnny-come-lately. Congress is usually apprised of the info of such info, according to House Rep Jason Chaffetz (R- Colorado), within 48 hours. It's going on 5 months. 

Unfortunately, all this plays into the idea that Libya and/or Obama wanted Stevens dead, and the presumed original plan was that all would die. Then ex-seals Woods and Doherty screwed up the plan by disobeying stand-down orders and rescued 20 - 30 unwanted witnesses with with which the administration has no plan to handle - witnesses Obama clearly does not want to speak, since witnesses from Algeria, for example, were made available immediately after that event. This scenario is now my personal belief of wheat happen in Benghazi and why. Obama does not comes from a peaceful political background or ideological outlook. Indeed,  he is the only President in US history to use the word "revenge" when discussing addressing his political opposition. The idea what he would - by an act of seeming negligence, done deliberately -  murder people who could prove to be politically difficult for his plans for re-election is not a remotely implausible theory to attribute to a man who advocates Revenge upon people for no other reason than they stand in the way of his own political ambitions. 

So, while the House dithers and FOX NEWS calls everyone but themselves "Mainstream Media", what is happening to these survivors? Will they turn up with "tragic brain damage sustained in the attacks" or will the world be told that the original records were wrong, there was only one survivor, in Walter Reed, and that all doctors agree that his brain damage was caused by the attack? Impossible? Ask the man who advocated "revenge".

The GOP House needs to issue subpoenas for Clinton (to return), a Grand Jury for Obama,  immediately subpoena the records that will identify the remaining witnesses - the C130 manifest and the FBI records to start - and subpoena them to testify and should not stand on ceremony. The GOP House needs to find its inner rage and they need to issue subpoenas for all of the above and they need to issue them now.

FOX NEWS HAS AN OBLIGATION TO INVESTIGATE.SO DOES CONGRESS. Many of us are tired of supplying Fox News with their ratings from which they glean advertising revenue and tired of paying for the electricity in the GOP house offices while both refuse to do the jobs for which they beg our attention and votes. Playtime is over. It's time to get down to work. 

FOX NEWS hosts and reporters - If you need to be given a template with which to set you to your jobs investigating Benghazi  just do this: All of you pretend that you are Dan Rather and Obama is a Republican. If I need to explain that, then please resign. We're running out of patience.

We're also tired of being asked to do your jobs for you as is apparent in the screenshots from FOX hosts and Rep Rohrabacher. WE PAY YOU BOTH. GET TO WORK

**************************

APRIL 27 - 29 2013

*****************************

BENGHAZI-TRUTH DAILY MEMO
Filed for Monday, April 29, 2013

IT'S TIME TO TURN UP THE HEAT. As you know from the last Memo, Kathy Amidon successfully outed Boehner's motivation for keeping from a vote HR36 - a bill designed to initiate a Select House Committee (like the one that got Nixon more or less impeached) - about Benghazi; amazingly, Boehner, a supposed Republican, is refusing to initiate the legal mechanism which would investigate Obama, a Democrat, because he knows the bill would pass on the floor of the House. In other words, denying the majority will of the people through their elected Representatives to have Obama investigated on Benghazi. So far more than half of all republicans have signed onto this bill - 129, a huge number well in excess of the "Hastert Rule".

This kind of fawning, sycophantic behavior toward Obama on Boehner's part has had GOP tongues wagging for months creating speculation of the motivation of Boehner protecting Obama from Boehner being threatened by Obama to being mentally ill (Benghazi-Truth's opinion based on Boehner's repeated uncontrollable public sobbing over the slimmest of reasons is that he is mentally ill, and Obama's people have experts in psychology guiding Obama on how to manipulate a person in Boehner's particular psychological state, which basically would wrap it all up these questions in one jigsaw puzzle completed).

But even if Boehner is half-crazy, the other half of him isn't, and even a moron can understand when his career is in jeopardy via public opinion, so in today's memo I am going to show you all how to do exactly what Kathy did - easily and entirely legally.

First, it's easy to imagine people saying, "Why are you putting such a dramatically powerful heretofore unused political weapon into the public hands? Might it not be misused by the liberal democrats against conservatives?" The answer to that is easy: it is the Democrats who have secrets to hide and Conservative Republicans who are in desperate need of having the truth be shared between each other and the world. The imbalance is so outrageous that the proportionality isn't even worth discussing.

The second question you might ask is, "Why Boehner?! He's a Republican! He's one of our guys " Well, I would disagree with all of that except his party affiliation. Indeed, our party, the Republican party, is so fragmented because of feckless country-clubbers like Boehner who play get-along while the leftists beat the living stuffing out of us that liberals have been able to exploit those divisions, driving some conservatives to start chattering stupidly about "third parties" while we know that any party that divides the right becomes the instant election victory card for every single democrat in the United States of America. The point here is we need to rein in our own before moving ahead against the enemy. This means putting a fire under the lazy get-along Republicans and get them to stop wandering the halls aimlessly and set them to their jobs with the kind of intensity that only comes with public awareness and pressure and the very immediate fear of losing an easy lifestyle that comes with that awareness and pressure. There is no point in doing this to Democrats because the media will cover for them. But if we do it to our own - Republicans - so they know a challenger awaits them in the next set of election primaries, maybe, just maybe, we can wake them up and get them off their butts. And that is what this is about, because once you eliminate the media cover and the lazy, timid behavior of the Congressional GOP, you strip away all of Obama's protection and the fact is he is perhaps the most politically - and legally - vulnerable President in the history of the United States: the economy because of his policies is a disaster, we are under regular attack by Islamic terrorists, this birth record is a criminal forgery, his background is a socio-political nightmare and he is - and here's where gets gets particularly important - almost certainly 100% responsible for the deaths of the people in Benghazi and apparently definitely responsible for the silencing and who-knows-what-else of the 33 Benghazi survivor-witnesses he clearly does not want to see testify. If Obama is impeached because of that the democrat party and media will be left in a smoking ruin and as conservatives that is just exactly what our target objective should and must be to restore the country as we think it should be. So we have to get our guys rolling. 

What I am about to show you how to do should strike absolute terror into all but those with the most responsible congressional records. I want you to do it. The founding fathers want you to do it. The ghosts of the Benghazi dead want you to do it. The 33 silenced witnesses want you to do it. And future generations will thank you for doing it. You will be doing it to republicans. You will be doing it to expose them to appropriate public scrutiny to frighten them into doing their jobs.You are their boss. Literally. This is nothing more or less than the taxpayer/elected official version of a boss showing the worker something he said and did and demonstrating he or she has the power to have that elected official fired. No politician wants what will be said on the telephone to be broadcast to the world. That is what you are going to do, and they will become afraid for their careers and lifestyles and Benghazi will get the Nixon times ten treatment that it deserves and with God's help America will be set right again. That's the plan. Don't let your countrymen down.

1.IS IT LEGAL? That depends on where you live. What allows this is the "One Party Consent" law, which varies from State to State. All but 12 states allow recording a conversation if you, basically, agree with yourself it can be done and are a party to the conversation (recording a conversation in which you are not a part is called wiretapping and is not at all legal, but as long as you are doing part of the talking which is recorded it's legal).

The states in which it is not legal: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada (needs to be an emergency, otherwise, no), New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vermont (There is no state law on this and federal law allows it, but it's included here to be safe about it), Washington State (not DC, the US Capitol, where it is legal, and to whom most of your calls in this matter are likely to be directed) and Illinois.

IT IS LEGAL TO RECORD CONVERSATIONS IN WHICH YOU ARE A PART IN ALL OTHER STATES.


If you want additional reading or proof that you are not being led astray somehow by this blog, read these:
http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm
http://www.dmlp.org/book/export/html/1246

Are you allowed to make these conversations public? As long as you are calling a public office about public business, the answer is clearly a resounding yes. We're not a communist country. 

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20130402/OPINION16/304020009/Can-public-business-private-conversation-


2.RECORDING IS EASY. 

YOU NEED:

1. A speaker phone.
Do you have a speaker phone option on your land line or cell phone? If not, a new speaker phone can be had cheap at Best Buy (you only need to plug it into an existing outlet, you don't need a new phone line)

2. A computer with a recording option as part of your built-in accessories (it's hard to imagine one in the last ten years that doesn't  this is standard  built-in stuff, so take a peek and see if you have it). You find it by going to Start > All Programs > Accessories (yellow folder icon) > Sound recorder. If you have a desk PC you might need a separate microphone. If you have a laptop it is almost certain your laptop has one build in. It's easy enough to check, turn the sound recorder on and start talking. Play it back. It's safe, no one else will hear it, it's within your own computer. If you hear yourself your laptop is like most and has a built-ion microphone.

So if you have a laptop, all you need is a speaker phone option on your home phone or cell phone. That's all you need.

3. HOW TO DO IT.

Start recording.  Dial the number. Ask Boehner's lacky (or whomever) what the rep's position is on House Resolution 36 for a Select Committee on Benghazi. You don't need to be Mike Wallace about it, so don't let lack of confidence deter you. Just do it.

4. YOUTUBE

This is so simple you have no idea. Go to www.youtube.com. Click "Sign In". Open the "Create account" or "Registration" option and just fill it in. This can be done by a novice in 5 minutes. Don't let assumptions about it being too difficult stop you - little kids can do. Try it. Simple. Then you will see a button called "Upload". Follow the prompts and click on the file you recorded (probably automatically saved to "My music" or "My video"). If you cannot upload, contact Kathy or myself on Twitter (@Kathy_Amidon  or @FrankMDavisJR) and we'll sort it out in 2 minutes.

DO IT.

It probably won't take many of these audio/videos, maybe only three or four, before a very alarmed GOP House moves as fast as possible on Benghazi so this sudden power of the people is not felt so well by the people that Congress winds up having to deal with it forever; they would throw Obama under the bus in two seconds if they thought that was their future.

So there you have it. It's really simple once you start to do it. Just let the first step be followed by the next and you'll be amazed how simple it is.

Conservatives have been crying and pleading for fatcat radio hosts to bestow salvation upon them. Guess what? You don't need them. You can fix this damn problem for yourselves, easily. Remember, our nationally-covered FOX boycott resulted in FOX suddenly deciding that Benghazi was a bit important as opposed to not important at all - big change. Not long after the boycott got traction One America TV network announced it was coming on the air (coincidence to the boycott or causation? Who can tell?) and a week after I publicly suggested to Chuck Woolery that his agent should contact the Washington Times for a gig with them the Washington Times announced it was signing him. The point is that you have influence and power that you don't know you have, and it works. I can assure you that recording House member office phone calls and posting them on YouTube will get them moving on Benghazi and Obama's prosecution so fast it will be blinding. Trust me. Media is my business. I've been right before.

Boehner's DC Office number is 
(202) 225-6205

I'm looking forward to hearing all your great calls on YouTube. Let the restoration of America begin!

***************************

BENGHAZI-TRUTH DAILY MEMO

Filed for Saturday, April 27, 2013


WHAT IS UP with Speaker John Boehner?! That's been the question on the lips of most conservatives for months, particularly since the advent of the murders by Islamic terrorists of Americans in Benghazi. In the interests of full disclosure, it must be said up front that Benghazi Truth was never a fan of Boehner years before there was an incident, quite frankly, in Benghazi: 

Boehner's weeping, emotionally disconnected - indeed, seeming emotionally disturbed and distressed - public behavior has made him perhaps the least appropriate Speaker of the House in the history of the GOP.

Since Benghazi, as Obama's culpability has become more clear, Boehner appears transparently determined to replace the clearing fog with downright obfuscation and cover-up. We have written here before about Boehner's utterly apparent infatuation with Obama; he quietly reprimands the President as he is expected to do as the leader of the opposition, but with no force. Countered with bizarre public expressions of admiration for Obama's very presence - he truly takes on the face of a star-struck child gazing adoringly at a hero, we've all seen it, there's no point in being coy about it - Boehner's behavior has been easy to predict: he covers for Obama.

But prediction in the form of speculation and supposition are not the same as having a fact; a cold, hard fact in hand on which the sunlight glints and there is no vague mystery about it. However, thanks to Tea Party Fire Ants' Twitter team leader, the amazing and no-fooling-around Kathy Amidon, we essentially have that cold fact in hand.

Abiding by the legal demands of the One Party Consent Rule, which allows telephone conversations in most states to be recorded without the person on the other end being aware, Kathy called and recorded conversations with a person who calls himself "Rick" who answers the phone in not one but two of Boehner's offices - somehow. Rick in my opinion had some very interesting things to say, as you can hear. Rick, to begin with, denies answering the phone for two offices when he does just that, and Kathy catches him at it. Rick says a select committee would cost a great deal of money, but Frank Wolf rightly cites that it would cost nothing additional in the budget, since the allocations are there already and would otherwise go partially unused. But it gets worse. Much worse. And this is what is so important: Rick admits twice, speaking on behalf of Boehner, that if Boehner brought HR36 to the floor, it would pass! Of course it would, HR36 has 126 co-sponsors (most bills have two or three co-sponsors, so Boehner is really swimming against the tide)

Here is Kathy's audio recording with the two "Rick" conversations. Listen carefully, as Rick clearly has his marching orders from Boehner on how to handle such calls and therefore in effect speaks for Boehner as directly as anyone besides Boehner himself ever could:

So what do we have here? Just an argumentative lackey?  No. Rick's job is to speak on behalf of Boehner when people call. Rick says that if HR36 was brought to the floor, it would pass, and then launches into a highly debatable point-of-view about hypothetical expended resources. What Rick does not do is admit his boss Boehner is thwarting the will of the American people and that is just exactly what Boehner is doing. All those other House Reps  who Rick - speaking directly for Boehner - admits would cause HR36 to pass were each themselves elected. In that respect they are each and all equal to Boehner in the eyes of the Constitution. They are exactly what their title suggests: they are representatives. They represent the people in their individual districts. Each was elected to carry out the will of those who voted them into office. Each Rep vote speaks for many thousands of people. By denying HR36 to be brought to the floor because he feels he knows best on the merits of his own opinion when 126 of his peers representing about 30% of the total American population of 300 million citizens, he denies those people their chance to speak and be heard though their Representatives on the floor of the House.  

There is a well-worn colloquial term for this which should signal the loudest possible alarm: it's literally called "tyranny", and it is real and it is manifest and it is happening and it is now. And it must be stopped immediately. I'm not being melodramatic; one man stopping all others from having their will heard and obeyed as a collective is what our Founding Fathers and earliest citizens suffered, fought and often died for.

We - the Tea Party Fire Ants - are working with Tea Party members in Boehner's district to send him a message, but if Boehner's office mouthpiece Rick speaks accurately for his boss, then faster, more immediate legal measures need to be taken.

It is our growing opinion that we all need to work the Twitter accounts of every influential House Representative to demand and successfully have an awkward but now entirely obviously necessary vote of no confidence for Boehner and have him removed as Speaker. We don't have years to screw around - this must be done now.

Whether covering for Obama or truly concerned about the measures of expense in a Select Committee it's entirely possible he simply does not understand, it is now, as of today, essentially proven that he is using his power to silence and unconstitutionally deny the voice of the American people by using raw, arrogant power to try to impede the most basic mechanism of our republic - the vote - to prevent from passage a bill which has more co-sponsors than most ten bills - which see a floor vote - rolled together.

Boehner must be convinced to allow HR36 to be voted on or must somehow have the gavel legally removed from his hand essentially immediately or ASAP. Obama rules by unconstitutional Executive Order and Boehner seems to be cut from the same cloth, following Obama's lead.

By any legal means necessary Boehner must be thwarted so the machinery of our American system can be allowed to resume. Don't be shy. It's time to get angry and it's time to get loud: 

BOEHNER HAS GOT TO GO.

***********************