Have yu ever dubted that the Obama Labor Department is a dishoenst, POLIITCAL organization, with people who follow the Obama "party line" (not a matter of "conspiracy", or of Obama "ordering" tthem to do it, but a matter of them knowing what they need to do and doing it)? ;There was the obvius dishoensty of that sudden "drop" in unemployment below 8% in the October jobs report, based on theFICTION of an 8730000 sudden increase in "jobs added" in the "household survey", while there was ony a 114,0000 increase in "jobs added" n the OFFICIAL employers survey . Then thre was that ADMITTED error, where the LKabor Dept. manufactured the "lowest" weekly number of new unemplyment claims in four years with a FALSE (they admitted it wsa false the nexts week) number of 342,0000, based on simply LEQAVING OUT some 25,0000 claims filed in California. Glitch? Maybe. Dishoensty? Definitely, because the Labor Department did nto CORRECT the ERROR in its REVISION teh next week, but merely noted it (while apparently adding the "correctin" to that week, mking it FALSE as well).
You say that extra number of new unemployment claims the following week, even without a correction could not help Obama, because it resulted in a yearly HIGH of 392,0000 two weeks or so ago? You are WRONG, and the DISHOENST mainstream media made you even more WRONG than yo u otherwise would be. Firt, you got those mainstream mediia headlines of a "four-year low" in new unemplyment claims, based on the originaly annnounced 339,000. As stated, our medi is composed of DISHONEST people: among the most dishoenst who have ever lived. Thus, the HEDLINES are NOT CORRECTED the next week, when the Labor Department says "oops!". But the media does DISREGARD the 392,0000 based on the Labor Department announcement of "techknical glitches"--without CORRECTING the 339,0000 (making the usual revision to 342,000). No. I don't know whehther LEAVING OUT CALIFORNIA was deiberatge, or merely incompetence callnig into quesitn all of their numbrs, but I do know the way it ws handled was DISHONEST and POLITICAL. The Labor Department did not want to make it boviuos to peoople that you cannot rely on its numbers by makng a HUGE CORRECTIION--a correctin which MIGHT have even forced our media to start calling intoquestion their numbers (including that ridiculous "drop" in unemployment for the month of Septermber, based on a number just as bad as that 339,000 number on weekly new unemployment claims. Note, again, that the 392,0000 number the next week does NOT 'hurt" Obama, because of the (dishoenst, because it should have been a correctin based on ERROR) of the number. However, the 392,000 number STOOD. Wht does that mean? It means that new unemployment claims were GUARANTEED (especially with these people in charge) to go DOWN heading into the electin. The 392,000 was a FALSE NUMBER, based on NOT CORRECTING the previuous week, but simply adding it to the next week. Slick, istn't it? Well, whether you think it is "slick", you have to admit it is as DISHONEST as you can get. "But, Skip, no one but you pays any attentin to these weekly new unemplyment clamims numbers anway." Not quite true. It pllays into the MEDIA NARRATIVE, and that is exaclty what happened with these manipulaitons, even if no one "votes" based on this particular number. But this is all merely PReAMBLE to tghe real subject of this article, and conclusive evidence that the Obama Labor Department is a DISHOENST, POITICAL ORGANIZATION.
You should know, by now, about those "automatic cuts" to defesne spending that are supposed to go itno effectg for next eyar. Well, those "cuts" will cause LAYOFFS in January, in the dfesne industry, if they happen. Now that original "debt ceiling deal" was a disgraceful fraud, and no politician actually INTENDS that these "automatic cuts" take place, but Congress has to ACT to stop it. Congress has not yet acted, and it is possible that they have worked themselves---along with Obama--into a BOX where they end up NOT ACTING. Any company dependent at all oon defense spendig had a problem. Under something called the "Warren Act", gtovernment contractors are supposed to INFORM their employees of impending layoffs. Well, this LOOMING cut in defense spending will result in some rather substantial LAYOFFSS. This meant, of course, that the LAW seemed to REQUIRE big defense contgractors to NOTIFY their employees of impending layoffs that would have to occur under the "automatic cuts". Even if you think there is a god chance Congress will prove itself a fraud, and rescind the "automatic cuts" (my opinino), any lawyer worth anything would TELL his clientent company to SEND OUT THE REQUIRED LAYOFF NOTICES, on the theory that is the current state of affairs. And you can't assume a change unless it occurs. This was, and would be, BAD for Obama, who did not want all of these LAYOFF notices going out.
Enter the Obama Labor Department: DISHOENST< CORRUPT and POLITICAL. No. I am not getting this infomatin second hand. My engineer brother works for General Dynamics in a defense job. The Obama Labor Dept. sent General Dynamics a LETTER, along with sending the same letter to other large companies doing business with the Federal Government, say;ing that the Labor Dept.'s opinion ws that the "Warren Act" did NOT require such a letter at this time. Step back a second. What are your chances of getting a letter like this if you had rEQUESTED it for reasons of your own (as a privat3e compnay)? Generally less than zero. My brother has a copy of the letter. Now it is possible, of course, that some compnies DiD "request" clarificatin from the Labor Dept. But--and this is certain--the real reason for this letter was POLITICAL: to protect the POLITICAL inerest of teh Labor Dept., at the expense of WORKERS (whoho MAY yet end up being laid off, and deserve notice to prepare). Wait. It gets WORSE. The second part of this is the real kicker, and the part I can't even believe (cynical as I am). This second part convicnes me that recent Labor Dept. employment info is coming from a deepartment perfectly willing to be DISHOENST and POLITICAL in the "informatin" it provides.
Why shuld the Labor Dept. give a legal opinin, when the facts are just as available to a big defense contractor, and it shigh priced attorneys, as they are to the Labor Dept.? Ordinarily, and I used to deal with the Federal Government as an attorney, the Labor Dept. would NOT give such a legal opinin--not wasily, anyway. In this cawse, it did. But what would you ADVISE General Dynamics, if you wre its attorneys? Right I have no idea what the specific attorneys of General Dynamics advised, but you KNMOW what most attorneys for the defense contractors advised: "Ehy, guys, you can't rely on a LETTER from the Labor Dept. to protect you agaisnt LIABILITY., if layoffs actually occur. Yu are going to have a BIG problem." This is where things get surreal. Obviusly, the defense contractors told the Labor Dept. that they had to send out the notices anyway. So the Labor Dept. sent a SECOND LETTER. Again, this amazes even cynical me. I have never even heard of this kind of thing happening. Again, my brother was shown the actual letter (I think shown to many if not all, General Dynamics employees, in an obvius CYA effort from General Dynamics).
The SECOND Labor Dept. letter said that the Labor Dept. would PROTECT employers from any liability under the "Warren Act" for not notifying employees of impending layoffs as to which the employer has advance knowledge. Say what? Can an organizatin be more DISHOENST and POLITICAL than thi? Selling out workers for POLITICAL GAIN. Gopsh. An Obama Administratin this political might SELL OUT DEAD AMERICANS for political gain (or not protect them in the first place, for the same reason). Oh. I forgot. The Obama Administratin did do that, in Benghazi. When you borther told me aobut ths SECOND letter, I was flabbergasted. This is conclusive evidence of a POLITICIZED Labor Dept. beyond belief, which you already knew from the attempt to keep Boeing from opening a plant in South Carolina. Do you reall doubt that this organizatin, or peole in it, is capalbe of producing employoment informatin with POLITICALLY MOTIVATED ERRORS? No doubt they are capable of it.
Do yu doubt that the Obama Administratin had a POLITICAL intrest in stopping these layoff notices? If you are stupid enough to doubt it, all you have to do is look at the transcript (or remember) the third debate. President Obama SAID: "Those defense cuts will not hapne." (That is, he was sa;ying that the "atutomatic cuts" now LAW, which were HIS IDEA, will not hap[pen). Obama falsely blamed the whole thing on Congress. oh. Congress was equally to blame, but this was that DEAL that Obama got out of the "debt ceiling crisis" with( the SHAM deal which should get them all defeated). Obviusly, Obama was DESPERATE to avoid "responsibility" for any defense layoffs (or others) because of theese scheduled "automatic cutts": desperate enough to blatantly LIE about the whole thing. The Obama Administratin later "backed off" of Obama's assertin that the automatic cuts "will not happen" . Problme; that is really the POLITICAL position that the POLITCAL Obama Labor Dept. had taken a month or more before. Again, does there need to be a "conspiracy" here? Did there need to be a "conspiracy" to blame the Benghazi terrorist attack on a video? of course not. Eveyrone just KNOWS what the POITICAL POSITION i, and they are exected to act accordingly.
Q.E.D. The Obama Labor Dept. is a dishoenst, poitical organizatin, whose peole know athat they are expected to protect the interests of Obama in every way they can. And they know what those intrests are, and what will help Obam (or at least what they think will help Obama).
P.S No proofreading oir spel checkng (bad eyesight).