Category Archives: Lies, Lies, Lies
Judge Jeanine Pirrorips the Obama administration for everything from Benghazi to the AP phone records.
via The American Conservative
No, this is not Watergate or Iran-Contra. Nor is it like the sex scandal that got Bill Clinton impeached.
The AP, IRS and Benghazi matters represent a scandal not of presidential wrongdoing, but of presidential indolence, indifference and incompetence in discharging the duties of chief executive.
The Barack Obama revealed to us in recent days is something rare in our history: a spectator president, clueless about what is going on in his own household, who reacts to revelations like some stunned bystander.
Consider. Because of a grave national security leak, President Obama’s Department of Justice seized two months of records from 20 telephones used by The Associated Press. An unprecedented seizure.
Yet the president was left completely in the dark. And though he rushed to defend the seizure, he claims he was uninvolved.
While the AP issue does not appear to have legs—we know what was done and why—it has badly damaged this president. For his own Justice Department treated the press, which has an exalted opinion of itself and its role, with the same contempt as the IRS treated the Tea Party.
The episode has damaged a crucial presidential asset. For this Washington press corps had provided this president with a protective coverage of his follies and failings unseen since the White House press of half a century ago covered up the prowlings of JFK.
The Benghazi issue is of far greater gravity. Still, Obama’s sins here as well seem to be those of omission, not commission.
The president was apparently completely in the dark about the urgent requests from Benghazi for more security. Obama was also apparently completely out of the loop during the seven-hour crisis of Sept. 11-12, when Ambassador Stevens was assassinated, calls for help from Benghazi were denied and two heroic ex-Navy SEALs died fighting to defend U.S. personnel from the roof of that CIA installation.
No one seems to know where Obama was that night.
- White House Troubles (lewrockwell.com)
- The Bystander President (theamericanconservative.com)
- The Spectator President (takimag.com)
- The Spectator President (buchanan.org)
- Half of America wants Obama impeached (wnd.com)
- It’s Bigger Than Obama — We’re Witnessing What Happens When Liberalism Rules (rushlimbaugh.com)
The gallery at the House Ways and Means Committee Friday had to be called to order after it burst into applause and some gave a standing ovation following an impassioned diatribe against the IRS by Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Mike Kelly.
Kelly took his time during the hearing on the IRS’s targeting of conservatives to lambaste outgoing head Steven Miller, reminding Miller that while the IRS would like to chalk the organization’s recent actions up to a mistake, regular Americans do not get that luxury when dealing with the IRS.
“If you think it’s uncomfortable sitting over there you ought to be a private individual when the IRS is across from you asking you questions,” Kelly began, and that set the tone for the subsequent four minutes.
Some of the highlights:
- “I have a grandson who’s afraid to get out of bed at night because he thinks there’s someone under the bed that’s going to grab him. And I think most Americans feel that way about the IRS.”
- “This kind of reconfirms that, you know what, they [the IRS] can do almost anything they want to anybody they want, anytime they want. This is very chilling for the American people.”
- “This is a Pandora’s Box that has been opened and I don’t think we can get the lid back on it.”
- “I don’t believe the White House just found out about this in a news report.”
- “I got to tell you, where you’re sitting, you should be outraged — and you’re not. The American people should be outraged, and they are.”
- “This reconfirms everything the American public believes! This is a huge blow to the faith and trust the American people have in their government!”
- “Is there any limit to the scope of where you folks can go?”
- “It’s sure as hell intimidating. And I don’t’ know that I got any answers from you today.”
- “I am more concerned today than I was before. The fact that you all can do just about anything you want to anybody. You know, you can put anybody out of business that you want anytime you want.”
- “And when the IRS comes in, you’re not allowed to be shoddy, you’re not allowed to be run horribly, you’re not allowed to make mistakes, you’re not allowed to do one damn thing that doesn’t come in compliance. If you do, you’re held responsible right then.”
- “This is absolutely an overreach and this is an outrage for all America!”
you can watch the impassioned speech below and watch the gallery erupt:
- The Scathing Speech That Just Got a Standing Ovation During the IRS Hearing (theblaze.com)
- The Scathing Speech That Just Got a Standing Ovation During the IRS Hearing (usapartisan.com)
- Congressman gets standing O for nailing IRS chief (wnd.com)
- Congressman Goes On Berating Rant At Ousted IRS Commissioner And Gets A Standing Ovation (businessinsider.com)
- Independents, Republicans believe IRS, Benghazi scandals deserve further investigation (theblaze.com)
- AWESOME! Rep Mike Kelly Receives Standing Ovation After Epic Rant at IRS Hearing (Video) (thegatewaypundit.com)
Try it the next time you hear the President speak . . .
Please read the rules before playing. This distraction may dull the nausea.
Rules for Bullshit Bingo:
- before barrack obama’s next televised speech, print your “bullshit bingo”
- check off the appropriate block when you hear one of those words/phrases.
- when you get five blocks horizontally, vertically, or diagonally, stand up and shout “bullshit!”
- Barack Obama Bingo Game (thesource.typepad.com)
via CBS News
(CBS News) “Everybody in the mission” in Benghazi, Libya, thought the attack on a U.S. consulate there last Sept. 11 was an act of terror “from the get-go,” according to excerpts of an interview investigators conducted with the No. 2 official in Libya at the time, obtained by CBS News’ “Face the Nation.”
“I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning,” Greg Hicks, a 22-year foreign service diplomat who was the highest-ranking U.S. official in Libya after the strike, told investigators under authority of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Hicks, the former U.S. Embassy Tripoli deputy chief of mission, was not in Benghazi at the time of the attack, which killed Chris Stevens – then the U.S. ambassador to Libya – and three other Americans.
When he appears this week before the committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., Hicks is expected to offer testimony at odds with what some American officials were saying in public – and on “Face the Nation” – just five days after the attack. Benghazi whistleblowers have rallied attention to discrepancies among the administration’s reaction to the attack, which The Weekly Standard suggests was frayed by ever-evolving talking points that sought to remove references to al Qaeda.
On Sept. 16, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice hit the media circuit, appearing on all five Sunday talk shows to dispel the notion that the strike was a premeditated terrorist act and to perpetuate the case that it began “spontaneously” out of protests in Egypt. Rice’s spot on “Face the Nation” that day was preceded by the new President of Libya Mohammed al-Magariaf, who said his government had “no doubt that this was preplanned, predetermined.”
- Official: We Knew Benghazi as a Terrorist Attack “From The Get-go” (tarpon.wordpress.com)
- Prepare For Bombshells From The Benghazi Whistle Blower Hearings On Wednesday (warnewsupdates.blogspot.com)
- Official: We knew terrorists attacked Benghazi “from the get-go” (cbsnews.com)
- Diplomat to testify that Benghazi “was a terrorist attack from the beginning” (hotair.com)
- Administration Knew Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack ‘From the Get-Go’ (pjmedia.com)
- Rice’s Lies Hurt FBI’s Investigation Of Benghazi (sweetness-light.com)
- Official: We knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack “from the get-go” – CBS News (askmarion.wordpress.com)
- Darrell Issa says there was ‘clearly a political decision’ regarding Benghazi talking points (twitchy.com)
- Top Diplomat in Benghazi to Testify, “Everybody in the Mission” Thought 9/11 Attack Perpetrated by Terrorists “From the Get-Go” (nationalreview.com)
- U.S. Official Contradicts Initial White House Claims On Benghazi (huffingtonpost.com)
American Way: why it’s become clear that Obama’s White House is open to the rich and closed to the poor
President Obama’s pledges to open up the White House are going in reverse, says Mark McKinnon
Once, only nobles were granted an audience with the King.
In America, we’ve prided ourselves on abandoning those privileges of class some 237 years ago, following that little uprising in the 13 colonies.
And we again congratulated ourselves at 12:01 pm Eastern Time on January 20, 2009, just moments after Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States and as he committed to making his administration the most transparent and open in history.
But more than four years later it is time to ask questions. The most transparent administration ever? The most transparently political, yes. The most open government? If you have the money to buy access, yes.
Since last weekend, Mr and Mrs Regular Citizen have been denied the access people used to be granted to tour the White House, purportedly because of the clampdown on federal spending since the “sequester” that imposed cuts across the board.
These tours, most recently guided by volunteers though monitored by paid Secret Service staff, have been an American tradition since John and Abigail Adams, the first White House residents, personally hosted receptions for the public.
And their cancellation is an austerity measure that saves a pittance, while more frivolous taxpayer funding for items like the White House dog walker continues.
Meanwhile, noble Americans can buy time with the president for a suggested donation of $500,000 to his new campaign group, Organising for Action.
Yes, the announcement offering access to the president for cold, hard cash was made openly and with total transparency. But it was also made without shame.
MSNBC Caugh Editing Video Out Of Context (again!)
via Doubtful News
Even though this was cleared up, the damage was done.
After finding itself embroiled in another controversy about edited video, NBC News has re-aired a clip its critics say was selectively edited.
On Monday, MSNBC’s Martin Bashir aired a video that seemed to show grief-stricken Neil Heslin being heckled by pro-gun lobbyists as he talked about his 6-year-old son, who was killed in Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. While making a plea for gun control at a legislative hearing, Heslin at one point he turned to the audience and said: “I ask if there’s anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.”
When the audience remains silent, Heslin adds, “Not one person can answer that question.” And that’s when a few people recited the Second Amendment in response.
The video that host Martin Bashir aired, though, clipped out Heslin’s question and pause in the audience’s direction. The resulting edit made it look like boisterous audience members interrupted Heslin’s testimony.
Here is the video:
MORE . . .
- MSNBC pummeled for Sandy Hook video editing controversy (doubtfulnews.com)
- MSNBC Will Not Apologize for Deceptive Editing of Sandy Hook Parent ‘Heckling’ (breitbart.com)
- Did The Media Blatantly Mischaracterize Video Of Newtown Father Being ‘Heckled’ By ‘Gun Nuts’? (mediaite.com)
- After Twitchy’s report, MSNBC is reportedly ‘reviewing’ video of Newtown dad’s testimony (twitchy.com)
- Outrageous: How the left-wing media lied about Newtown ‘hecklers’ (twitchy.com)
“Is terror going to raise a white flag?” Exactly. Somebody in our government must define victory in this (undeclared) war on an ideology. What does victory look like? How will we know when we are victorious? Without a definition of victory, this (undeclared) war will continue ad infinitum – an ongoing, never ending justification to infringe on more and more of our rights. Something is seriously wrong.
• 9 – There Were Thirteen Original Colonies In America
It’s easy to understand why people believe this lie, but it is a lie nonetheless. The American flag has thirteen stripes representing the original thirteen colonies—but really there were only twelve.
That’s because Delaware was never a separate colony. After the British invaded the region and stole it from the Dutch in the 1660s, the Delaware territory was juggled between Maryland and Pennsylvania. Eventually it ended up under the ownership of William Penn—the guy who also owned Pennsylvania—and it remained a part of Pennsylvania until the Revolutionary War. In fact, it wasn’t even called Delaware—it was just known as “The Three Lower Counties.”
• 7 – Europeans Invaded Africa and Kidnapped the Slaves
This isn’t meant to trivialize slavery, or pardon any of the people who took part in it, or condone it in any way. But let’s face it: most Americans are under the impression that colonial-era slavery got its start with white people sailing over to Africa, kidnapping hundreds of thousands of people, and bringing them back to Europe and America in chains.
Parts of that are true. There were a lot of chains, and many Africans were certainly kidnapped. But despite the picture painted by many history textbooks, the majority of those slaves were actually sold to Europeans by other African slave traders—slave traders who had been operating on the continent for thousands of years. Slavery is nothing new to the world; it was actually pretty normal around that time. In fact, Egyptians were using Caucasian slaves in their armies during the thirteenth century. Heck, even the Bible endorsed the practice!
As far as the Atlantic Slave Trade was concerned, in-country African slaves were typically members of a defeated tribe. But as soon as slave traders realized that Europeans would pay for their slaves, they actively began kidnapping people just to sell them on the Nigerian coast.
And speaking of lies about slavery…
• 6 – Abraham Lincoln Was Strongly Opposed to Slavery
Abraham Lincoln is often put on a pedestal as one of the greatest opponents of slavery for freeing the slaves with his Emancipation Proclamation in 1862. In fact, he struggled with conflicting and ambiguous views on slavery—not to mention sexuality—during his entire Presidential career. He wasn’t a stalwart supporter of abolition; he only wanted to do what would make the Union stronger (remember, this was a time when the Confederate states had split from the Union and were at war).
In his own words: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.” This is called talking out of both sides of your mouth.
The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t really touch on racial equality or human rights. It was a wartime decision: “as a fit and necessary military measure. . . . All persons held as slaves in the Confederate states will thenceforward . . . be free.” In other words: only the enemy’s slaves were freed. Hooray to the great emancipator!
Let’s face it—if Honest Abe really wanted equality, Martin Luther King probably wouldn’t have a holiday named after him.
• 4 – The Founding Fathers Were All Christian
One of the prevailing myths taught in history classes is that the Founding Fathers of America were all Christian. The Declaration of Independence talks about God; the pledge of allegiance (which, incidentally, wasn’t even created until more than a century later) uses the words “under God”; and it all sort of jumbles together into the idea that Washington and crew were Bible-thumping Christian men.
Well, they weren’t. For starters, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were both believed to be deists, who don’t follow the Bible explicitly but assume there’s a “god” because nature is so great. George Washington most likely followed pantheism, which is the belief that nature is god. John Adams was a Unitarian, an offshoot of Christianity that believes Jesus was a great guy, but not God’s Son. Alexander Hamilton was a typical Christian—but only later in life, after his son was killed.
In the history of mankind there are countless instances of cult figures who have lead their followers to ruin and disillusionment. Names like Jim Jones, David Koresh, The Pied Piper, Bernie Madoff, Adolph Hitler, Charles Manson, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and a whole host of TV evangelists have done their damage.
It was easy for those outside and not sucked in by these hucksters to see the message they peddled defied logic, science and the laws of economics: Alchemy, master race, buy your way into heaven, getting something for nothing, all have that common thread.
But the lard used to hold it all together is usually tinged with a sort of religious fervor, transferred to that central figure, giving them cult like central power. It is a common thread that overcomes the doubt to accept a belief, no matter how self destructive, or outrageous it is.
In a sort of herd mentality, anyone that dares to question their core beliefs is immediately attacked and marginalized; labeled a “denier,” or a scientific/economic “blasphemer.”
But these cults have not only lead their followers to death, destruction, financial and spiritual ruin; many of them have brought those repercussions to the rest of society.
Former vice president, Al Gore, is a prime example of a modern day cult figure to his followers. His warning against man caused global warming, causing ice caps to melt, catastrophic storms, to wipe us out and cause mass extinctions, is all based on the burning of fossil fuels to power our civilization.
Followers/True Believes of Mr. Gore, burn with religious fervor as they recite historic temperature variations & green house gas concentrations, proving the earth is headed towards certain destruction due to the burning of fossil fuels. We must repent now!
But all the while, Mr. Gore was making hundreds of millions from his “work” and many of the green movements/companies that get government funding, have Mr. Gore’s fingerprints on them somewhere.
But crushingly, Gores followers are starting to realize Mr. Gores feet are made of clay. He sold his failing “Current” cable-television station for about $500 million, which he personally gets 100 million, to the anti-American Al-Jazeera media company…which is owned by the fossil-fuel-rich royal family of Qatar.
MORE . . .
- Al Gore is now richer than Mitt Romney – and it’s all thanks to big oil (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
- Thirteen Years Later, Lefties Finally Figure Out That Al Gore Has Been Lying To Them (stevengoddard.wordpress.com)
- AlGorjeera — It’s Official: Al Gore is by far the most lavishly funded fossil fuel player in the global warming debate today (climatedepot.com)
- Oil Funded Al Jazeera Makes Al Gore Richer Than Mitt Romney (townhall.com)
- Glenn Beck: “Badge of Honor” that I’m more loathsome to Al Gore than Al Jazeera (scooprocket.com)
- Employees of Al Gore discover he’s a bullsh*t hypocrite (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
- Current TV Staffers Reportedly Angry That ‘Bullsh*tter’ Al Gore Sold Out To ‘Big Oil’ (mediaite.com)
- Richer Than Romney: Al Gore Scores On Sale Of Current TV (forbes.com)
Representative Peter King stated that former CIA Director David Petraeus stated that he knew the Benghazi attack was terrorism and that the talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice were different from the ones prepared by the CIA. Petraeus stated Rice’s talking points were edited to demphasized the possibility of terrorism.
- Petraeus Told Congress From The Start (tarpon.wordpress.com)
- Petraeus to testify he knew Libya was terrorism from the start, source says (foxnews.com)
- Rep. Peter King: Petraeus Testified That He Always Pointed to Terrorist Involvement in the Benghazi Attack (foxnewsinsider.com)
- Bobmshell: Petraeus to tell Congress that he knew “almost immediately” Benghazi was work of terrorists (hotair.com)
- Rep. King: Petraeus Clearly Believed Benghazi Attack ‘Did Not Arise Out of a Demonstration (cnsnews.com)
- Petraeus testifies CIA’s Libya talking points were changed, lawmaker says (tarpon.wordpress.com)
via The PJ Tatler
On Sunday, two days before the presidential election, CBS News released a video clip that proves two things. The clip is from President Barack Obama’s Sept. 12 interview with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes. The newly release clip includes this exchange between the reporter and the president.
KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?
OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.
KROFT: It’s been described as a mob action, but there are reports that they were very heavily armed with grenades, that doesn’t sound like your normal demonstration.
OBAMA: As I said, we’re still investigating exactly what happened, I don’t want to jump the gun on this. But your right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is there are folks involved in this. Who were looking to target Americans from the start. So we’re gonna make sure that our first priority is to get our folks out safe, make sure our embassies are secured around the world and then we are going to go after those folks who carried this out.
KROFT: There have been reports, obviously this isn’t the first time…there have been attacks on the consulate before. There was an attack against the British ambassador. Do you…this occurred on Sept. 11. Can you tell me why the ambassador was in Benghazi yesterday? Was it to evaluate security at the consulate?
OBAMA: Well keep in mind Chris Stevens is somebody that was one of the first Americans on the ground when we were in the process of saving Benghazi and providing the opportunity for Libyans to create their own democracy. So this is somebody who had been courageous, had been on the ground, had helped to advise me and Secretary Clinton when we were taking our actions against Muammar Qaddafi. And is somebody who is very familiar with the train. He was doing the work that he does as a diplomat helping to shape our policies in the region at a time when things are still fairly fragile. But I think it’s important to note that we have a Libyan government in place that is fully cooperative, that sees the United States as a friend that recognizes we played an important role in liberating Libya and providing the Libyan people an opportunity to forge their own destiny. And in fact we had Libyans who helped protect our diplomats when they were under attack. But this is a country that is still rebuilding in the aftermath of Qaddafi. They don’t necessarily always have the same capabilities that countries with more established governments might have in helping to provide protection to our folks. But beyond that, what I want to do is make sure that we know exactly what happened, how it happened, who perpetrated this action, then we’ll act accordingly.”
The president and the reporter had that conversation after Obama’s Rose Garden remarks on Sept. 12, remarks that he would use during the second presidential debate to argue that he had called the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack just a day after the attack. But as is plain above, the president had not described Benghazi as terrorism, and was refusing under repeated questioning to do so. Shortly after this interview, Obama left Washington for a Las Vegas fundraiser. CBS held the tape unreleased from Sept. 12 to Nov. 4, and when the tape finally was released, it was only as part of a large CIA timeline of events that sources who were on the ground during the assault dispute.
It was in the second presidential debate that Mitt Romney attempted to pin Obama down on his administration’s spin after the assault. But another reporter, Candy Crowley of CNN, came to the president’s defense.
MORE . . .
- New Tape Proves Obama Refused to Describe Benghazi Attack as Terrorism on 9-12 (pjmedia.com)
- What President Obama Really Said In That ’60 Minutes’ Interview About Benghazi (foxnewsinsider.com)
- CBS covered up Obama’s Sept. 12 Benghazi admission (wnd.com)
- CBS BUSTS OBAMA – AND ITSELF – IN BENGHAZI COVER-UP: CBS News has released a clip of an interview… (pjmedia.com)
- Media Ignores Obama’s Libya Scandal (rushlimbaugh.com)
At least one former judge and district attorney has openly declared that President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are guilty of perjury and should be held accountable for it.
Jeanine Pirro served as district attorney and judge in Westchester County, New York. Westchester County is home to nearly one million people and contains forty-five different municipalities including Yonkers and White Plains (the county seat).
Today, Judge Pirro serves as a legal analyst for Fox News. As legal analyst, she reviewed the known facts surrounding the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that claimed the lives of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other brave Americans. In her report, she lays out the evidence that clearly indicates that both Obama and Clinton lied to the families of the victims and to the American people.
She presents a great case against them, showing some of the skills as a former district attorney. There is no doubt that as a judge, she would readily convict both of them of perjury and possibly even treasonous acts against the United States.
MORE . . .
- Judge Jeanine Pirro: Help Denied – People Died in Benghazi (Video) (nicedeb.wordpress.com)
- Clinton Mocks Romney as ‘Chief Contortionist’ for Cirque de Soleil (pjmedia.com)
With the president’s lackluster campaign and miserable four-year record nearly behind them and the media safely ignoring the Benghazi coverup, Democrats are stepping up the voter intimidation phase of the Obama re-election effort.
King Obama, fresh off a harrowing series of Hurricane Sandy photo ops, returned to his usual ways, calling for supporters to seek “revenge” against Mitt Romney.
At a campaign stop in Ohio on Friday, the sparse crowd began booing at the mention of Romney’s name. The Man Who Would Be King told audience members, “Vote! Voting’s the best revenge!”
“Revenge” for what, exactly? If anyone should be the target of voters’ desire for vengeance, it should be the current officeholder, but logic is the last thing to expect from a campaign that has spent its time focusing on Big Bird, tax returns and persuading young women to lose their virginity. (See a funny parody here.)
Obama and his followers feed each other. They pick up on his hate-mongering vibe and he perpetuates the cycle by encouraging their blood lust. Like yin and yang, it’s hard to tell where one begins and the other ends.
True to form for Democrats, Obama supporters have been burning up Twitter and other social media with threats to riot if the Anointed One does not win on Tuesday.
“I’ma start riot if Obama don’t win,” Vanna Jamie James tweeted in one of the less vulgar posts in the past few days. Along with threats to start riots, there have also been threats to shoot Romney if he wins. (Here’s hoping the Secret Service is on that.)
HBO host Bill Maher, naturally, had to pile on: “If you’re thinking about voting for Mitt Romney, I would like to make this one plea: black people know who you are and they will come after you.”
MORE . . .
- Now Entering the Voter Intimidation Phase (godfatherpolitics.com)
So you were suspicious about those September job creation numbers touted by the Obama Administration? You had good reason to be.
The payroll data firm ADP, which recently became partners with Moody’s Analytics, revised their estimate of the September jobs created down from 162,000 to 88,200. That new number is considerably less than the Labor Department’s count of 114,000, which included 104,000 from the private sector.
When the Labor Department’s job numbers came out for September, there was an uproar; many observers thought the numbers were manipulated to benefit Barack Obama’s reelection. As Jack Welch, former head of General Electric, tweeted after the Labor Department’s release: “Unbelievable jobs numbers…these Chicago guys will do anything…can’t debate so change numbers.”
But the revised ADP numbers have sparked strong suspicion that the October numbers will be worse than the Labor Department will let on.
Todd Schoenberger, managing principal at the BlackBay Group in New York, said: “It’s huge, no doubt about it. Their changing the methodology tells me that if the number is cut in half with that revision, then the revision we’re going to see Friday is going to be a disaster.”
ADP is taking no chances this time; they will announce their October count on Thursday before the Labor Department announces theirs on Friday. ADP said its new reports will offer a more detailed breakdown of the numbers while they increase the numbers of businesses analyzed.
- September Surprise! Jobs Count Revised Down, October Bleak (riehlworldview.com)
- ADP to revamp their jobs reporting (hotair.com)
- Non-shocker of the day: September jobs data revised by half (twitchy.com)
- ADP revises September 2012 jobs sharply down (impeachobamatoday.wordpress.com)