SUA Breaking News »Free Speech – Beware how you donate, get fired!

More Lies – This Time, Oct 2012 Jobs Report

Editor’s Note – The numbers just did not add-up. Monthly Jobs Reports were suspect for good reason. Just like any number coming from DC, we asked you every time to look behind the numbers. Turns out, the BLS was feeding us a set of cooked books, at least on one provable occasion.

In the past, SUA had raised the question over and over regarding the monthly labor statistics reports on the legitimacy of the numbers. In fact, during the run-up to the November election we, like most clear thinking folks, we were once again astounded how the numbers looked better than they should. That’s because they were better than the real numbers. A quick search in our categories archives under Economy will show numerous times how we asked if you could believe any statistic coming from this administration.

We quoted a lot of serious experts like those over at Zerohedge who knew the published numbers painted far too rosy a picture. It was clear to us back in campaign days, that on many occasions, at just the right time, statistics provided by the government cast a light upon the President that made the picture a bit rosier, too rosy, despite their dismal overall look. Of course we could not prove it, so we tried to explain what the real meaning was behind the published statistics.Welch Tweet on numbers

On October 11, 2012, we posted on the story of Jack Welch’s tweet about the Labor Statistic numbers looking so good, just at the right time for reelection, and supported his accusations and conclusions that the books looked like they were cooked. It turns out, not only was he correct, but we were as well – they DID cook the books. Also remember the timing on other issues.

This was only 30 days after 9/11/12. Benghazi was still new, and the administration was dancing all over the place so that it would not effect Obama’s chances of getting reelected. Monice Crowley was famous for defending him in the second debate, but now, we know they knew and lied. We were also being told over and over that you could keep your policy if you liked it in regard to ObamaCare.


Additionally, they knew about the IRS Scandal during this time but kept it under wraps as well, how convenient. So again we ask, do you believe anything coming from the administration anymore? The good thing, if there is anything good in DC, is that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee sent a letter to John H. Thompson, the Director of the US Census Bureau asking a lot of questions about these accusations. Here is the letter in PDF.

It was signed by the Chairman, Darrell Issa R-CA, Jason Farenthold, Sub-committee on the Federal Work Force, the USPS, and the Census Burea along with Kevin Brady, Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee. Please read these two aryicles:

WELCH WAS RIGHT – Team Obama Fudged Unemployment Numbers One Month Before Election

Posted by Jim Hoft – Gateway Pundit

In October 2012 the unemployment rate inexplicably dropped from 8.1% to 7.8%. It was the lowest rate in almost four years – right on time for the November election. The Department of Labor said that unemployment fell 0.3 percent because of a total employment gain of 873,000, the most since 1983. Of course, the liberal media was quick to attack Welch while ignoring his accusations. Chrissy Matthews led the charge:

But, now… A year later we find out that Jack Welch was right and the Obama Administration lied. The numbers were purposely manipulated for political purposes.
The New York Post reported, via Yid With Lid:

In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington. The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.

And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it. Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.

And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.

“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.

The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.

Anything to win. So will the criminal regime get away with this, too?


From WND

With polls now showing Americans’ widespread belief that President Obama’s “Affordable Care Act” was passed through fraud, the New York Post reports that just before the November 2012 presidential election, the U.S. Census Bureau “faked” the nation’s unemployment rate to help Obama win.

A month before Election Day, the government’s official unemployment rate surprisingly broke through the psychological 8 percent mark for the first time in nearly four years with a September “jobless rate” of 7.8 percent.

The welcome news was hailed by the Obama administration as proof the president’s controversial spending and regulatory policies were healing the troubled economy.

At the time, high-profile skepticism was immediate. Jack Welch, former chairman of General Electric, charged the data was fudged.

“Unbelievable jobs numbers … these Chicago guys will do anything … can’t debate so change numbers,” Welch tweeted.

Real-estate billionaire Donald Trump agreed with Welch: “He’s 100 percent correct, in terms of his statement about jobs. And after the election they’ll do a big correction.”

Added Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone: “I give Jack a lot of credit for being there and standing out. It makes it easier for me, because he and I share the same point of view. These numbers don’t square with what’s going on with the economy.”

The White House indignantly shot back at the skeptics, with Labor Secretary Hilda Solis protesting: “This is a methodology that’s been used for decades. And it is insulting when you hear people just cavalierly say that somehow we’re manipulating numbers.”

Now, however, the New York Post reports the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report.

The Post said the deception, which continues today, went beyond the employee and escalated at the time Obama was seeking reelection.

Beyond helping Obama win a second term – an election which, were it held today according to a poll, he would lose – unemployment statistics play a major role in determining national policy.

The Post noted, for example, the Federal Reserve is basing the curtailment of its so-called quantitative easing policy in part on the unemployment rate. Falsifying the rate, therefore, could have dire consequences for the country, the paper said.

The Census Bureau fakery isn’t the only manipulation of employment numbers, however.

As WND reported after the November election, the only way the government could arrive at an unemployment rate as low as 8 percent is by intentionally leaving large numbers of unemployed people out of the calculations.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in September 2012, 2.5 million people were marginally attached to the labor force.

Even though these individuals wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months, they were not counted because they didn’t look for work in the four weeks prior to the survey.

Furthermore, the government’s “official” unemployment stats also don’t include part-time workers who want and need full-time work.

As the blog summarized, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 7.8 percent figure “does not include unemployed members of the workforce who are not actively looking for work; nor does it factor in workers with part-time jobs who are seeking full-time employment. When these workers are included, the (U-6) un/underemployment rate for September remained at 14.7 percent as it had been in August.”

In an article titled “The Real Unemployment Rate,” Fox Business News analyst Elizabeth MacDonald did the math and arrived at virtually the same number: 14.5 percent unemployment.

And Mortimer Zuckerman, U.S. News & World Report’s editor in chief, wrote: “Given that the median period of unemployment is now in the range of five months, vast numbers who want to work are just not counted. If we include, as we should, people who have applied for a job in the last 12 months, and those employed part time who want full-time work, the real unemployment number is closer to 15 percent.”


Posted by on November 19, 2013. Filed under Economy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

3 Responses to More Lies – This Time, Oct 2012 Jobs Report

  1. William

    Sir, I am prior service Army myself and can’t take the way that this nation that I love and have caught for, to be going to hell the way that it is. If there is anything that I can do to assist you in your move to get this nation back on track to what our fore fathers intended, let me know via my attached e-mail. I live in Va.My wife and ALL of are friends are on board with you. My wife was even trying to attempt to put together what you have already started. We are your soldiers,Sir! Let us know how we can assist you.
    Thank you and God Bless!

  2. Joshua

    That goes as well for me, sir. I served in the 108th ADA Brigade out of Fort Bragg and am ready to retake this country for Americans. Except I live in Kansas and we are all tired of Obama’s lies.

Leave a Response

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>