Cooking the Books?

John Crudele at the New York Post reports an astounding accusation:

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…

It is, at the moment, an unsubstantiated allegation – but it is a credible allegation, as well.  The next, logical step is to bring those named later in the report before Congress to testify – under oath – as to what happened.  We can’t rely upon internal investigators, nor investigators of the Justice Department.  The accusation here is that data was faked in the service of the Administration – specifically to help Obama get re-elected last year.  Because of the nature of the accusation, absolutely no one in the Obama Administration can be trusted to investigate.

To make myself clear – I don’t know if this accusation is true.  It needs to be completely investigated.  Fearlessly investigated – and that is our problem: does the Congressional GOP have the sheer guts to look in to this?  I don’t know.  For the sake of peace, maybe they’ll let it slide, as they’ve let so much else slide.  Hopefully there will be some courage.

9 thoughts on “Cooking the Books?

  1. Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] November 19, 2013 / 3:18 pm

    At least you are accurate in that the claims haven’t been verified. It seems to me that Julius Blackmon was following the orders of his supervisors to get 90% coverage for the survey. It isn’t clear if he was given these orders for political or economic reasons. I’ll wait for more facts before considering this a scandal especially when Matt Margolis called the September 2012 employment figures abysmal.

  2. Amazona November 19, 2013 / 6:26 pm

    Yeah, but then a question would have to be, “Would learning this have mattered to the moronic sheeple who voted for Obama in spite of his failures and other lies?”

    BTW, had a typo, spelled Obama as “OBAAMA” and almost left it in, as it was in the same sentence as “sheeple”. But he is not the sheep, he is the charlatan, and those who trot dutifully along in his wake pretending that the steaming piles they are trying not to step in are not really there at all, or are really just piles of yummy chocolate thanks to his largesse, are the sheep.

    Except even a sheep will try not to get bitten twice.

  3. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) November 19, 2013 / 7:03 pm

    The claims haven’t BEEN VERIFIED?

    Then why did the Census Bureau respond:



    The Census Bureau doesn’t see systemic manipulation in the manipulation that they admitted happened; the IRS doesn’t see the targeting of conservative groups except in Cincinnati; the state Department doesn’t see the terrorists killing our ambassador but they did see a video mocking Mohammed; the Justice Department doesn’t see weapons they put in the hands of Mexican Drug Cartels but they did report that “most of the guns used by Mexican drug cartels came from the US”; the Justice department didn’t see any voter intimidation when Black Panthers carrying truncheons blocked the door to a polling place but they see criminal activity by AP and FOX NEWS reporters … shall i continue?

    And the Obama Dung Beetles never “see” what is plainly apparent to any sentient being; Obama’s a liar and they’re the useful idiot.

    • Amazona November 19, 2013 / 8:34 pm

      It kind of sounds like the Census Bureau has hired Bill Clinton to write its statements, doesn’t it? But here, instead of posing the question of the meaning of “is” it is defining the word :systemic”. I guess this means if it just happened, oh, half the time it was not “systemic”? If the information was accurate for 100 years and then manipulated for just six months, perhaps they do not consider that “systemic”.

      I think I am going to go with “systemic” in a more literal way—that is, as part of a system. It was a manipulation done within the system, by the system, so that ought to qualify it as “systemic”.

      And then there is the double waffling of trying to establish plausible deniability by setting up TWO criteria—first, did they SEE it, and second, was it SYSTEMIC? I guess they could have expanded on that: “The Census Bureau sees no systemic, purposeful, malicious, cheerful, harmonic, collective, deceitful manipulation of the data.”

      Then they would not only have had to SEE it, it would have to qualify under several different standards, and then no doubt there would be quibbling about the degree to which it qualified under each. Was it very systemic, kind of systemic, barely systemic? Just a hint of systemic abuse?

      And then of course all that is required is an apology and shazaam, it all goes away.

      (This, at least, is the attitude of that goofy Canadian mayor, Ford, who was whining about how he has APOLOGIZED, what more do they WANT, they just won’t DROP IT!!)

  4. Ernie Moser November 20, 2013 / 3:31 am

    Some need more facts, which undoubtedly will be forth coming from the most transparent administration ever. Jeremiah Wright is a racially passionate bigot and Barry attended his church for years. This explains, Barry’s foolishly jumping to conclusions about police acting stupidly, Trayvon being like the son he’d have if he had one, or the Black Panthers not being prosecuted… it’s called a mindset and it show a pattern of racial bias. The double standard in this country needs to end. Obama has exasperated not relived racial tensions in this country. Bigotry is just as ugly coming from a Black as it is coming from a Caucasian.

    Ayer is yet another fact. You will be known by the company you keep. Ayers is a murder. The administration lied about Benghazi, fast and furious, using the IRS to target its political enemies, surveillance both domestic and foreign, and the hits just keep on coming. You can keep your health care insurance and your doctor if you like them period, was a lie too. The whole law depends upon you’re not being able to do this, so it’s not even a good lie. The ends justify the means, right? Here we observe a continued pattern of deception throughout Barry’s Presidency.

    This may not have been proven, yet, but no one should be surprise if it is and it would seem completely reasonable to speculate it may be. The time for giving Barry the benefit of the doubt is long over. There is now more than sufficient evidence for impeachment, but Barry’s safe, because Joe’s the V.P. and there’s no political appetite for it. The Republicans are too whipped to try and the Democrats too corrupt to put the nation’s welfare before their own political aspirations. However, this may turn out to good thing for conservatism, as Berry is doing immeasurable harm to progressive causes and credibility with all his transparent lying. Maybe that’s what was meant by the most transparent administration…, but that’s doubtful, since that would be truthful.

    Finally, most anyone who has looked, even casually into who Barry was, knew in 2008 this guy was whack! If you’re still defending Obama, you’ve voted on the basis of race, are an ideology or if neither of these defines you, for your own safety, I hope you have your helmet tightly strapped on and you have adult supervision close by.

    • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) November 20, 2013 / 1:22 pm


      I think you mean Obama exacerbated racial tensions. On this I absolutely agree; if it were possible to locate comments from 2008-2009 i am confidant that I stated that Obama would set race relations back 25 years, and lo!

      Obama is demonstrably untrustworthy; psychologists study the attitudes toward criminality among criminals and have found that each criminal will excuse crimes up to and including his own crimes. A thief will excuse the lie, and burglary but not robbery involving assault. A mugger will excuse lying, thievery, assault but not murder. A Murderer will excuse everything up to murder but not rape. and so it goes.

      Obama has demonstrated that he has no qualms about violating the rule of law (choom-gang), has no compunction regarding rules (posing as a foreign student to get financial aid) when it suits him or benefits him.

      Why would we be surprised when he lies and then feels justified in his lies? C’mon, anyone that lies about his own mother and her illness would lie about anything; he has no boundaries that we understand. All lies that save Him are justifiable in his mind.

      As far as impeachment, the bar is surprisingly low for bringing charges. the bar is immeasurably high for conviction. High Crimes that is, crimes committed by persons as a result of being in high office is fairly obvious; and misdemeanors from English Common Law is misbehavior or behavior unbecoming of a person in high office. Every President since John Adams could have been impeached, but none would be convicted in the Senate because Senators would not understand the crime or behavior as detrimental to the operation of the Executive Branch.

      Obama would have to pee on Putin’s leg then rob John Roberts at gun-point before charges were brought, and even then the Senate would decide that both Putin & Roberts got what coming to them.

      • Mark Moser November 20, 2013 / 1:37 pm

        After Robert’s vote upholding Obama care and Putin being… well Putin i’d lose no sleep over their wet pant legs at least.

    • Amazona November 20, 2013 / 6:49 pm

      Ernie, what passes for ideology with the rabidly radical Left has nothing to do with actual politics—that is, how best to govern the nation—and everything to do with emotion. And I have come to believe that very little of this is positive emotion—that is, actual overt support for Obama—compared to the real engine of the RRL, its irrational and compulsive hatred of what they have invented and then called Conservatives.

      “…far Right Colterite talking points..” is a great example of this. The statement says absolutely nothing except that the writer feels that spewing mental vitriol is the same as political commentary.

      A friend from another country opined, back in 2008, that electing Obama would mean that no other black person would be elected for a very long time, because he would be such an unmitigated disaster and create so much racial distrust and animosity that people would be unwilling to take the risk, again, of electing another black person. And it has turned out to be so much worse than that.

      Although, to be fair, I think that Obama’s overt racism, support of racism, and encouragement of racial enmity has really only given many black people permission to let their true feelings show. I, for example, was a little horrified when I learned of Black Liberation Theology and Wright’s church, but was deeply and profoundly horrified when I saw a black woman say, with open contempt, that black people around the country have been believing this and participating in churches like this for decades, and white people were just finding out about it.

      So to give Barry the benefit of the doubt, we can probably see him not as a creator of racial hatred but merely the instrument of bringing it out into the open, where people can see the festering hatred that has, evidently, been the defining characteristic of millions of people. So maybe it was there all along. But what he has done, in making racism acceptable and in purposely fanning the flames of racial disharmony and distrust, has resulted in a racial divide far greater than we ever had before.

      There was a time when any racism directed at black people was simply an ignorant bias against their skin color, and a belief that their race made them somehow inferior. Now racism toward black people has shifted to bias against actual behavior and culture, and I think that is going to be a lot harder to overcome.

Comments are closed.