Category Archives: fake news

Mueller, FBI, DNC pulling a fast one on the public

This is a reblog of Professor James Fetzer’s post of July 18, 2018.

According to the latest, Special Counsel Robert Mueller has indicted 12 Russian military intel officers for hacking the DNC in an attempt to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, citing the Guccifer 2.0 files as proof.

But back on 10 July 2017, William Craddick reported in Zero Hedge, “New Blockbuster Research Shows Guccifer 2.0 Files Were Copied Locally, Not  Hacked”, based upon the rapidity with which they had been downloaded and that it happened in the Eastern Time Zone.

Months earlier, on 6 January 2017, Rachael Revesz, in the UK Independent, had reported, “Democratic National Committee ‘did not allow’ FBI to examine hacked servers before agency blamed Russia as culprit”. So just how dumb are we supposed to be?

Even James Comey, on 10 January 2017, in The Hill, just a few days later, admitted, “Comey: DNC denied FBI’s requests for access to hacked servers”, the only explanation for which has to be that the DNC knew they would not find evidence of hacking.

The DNC, the FBI and Mueller have the public in an uproar on the basis of claims of hacking by Russians that it cannot sustain. This goes far beyond a “witch hunt” and into the abyss of propaganda to promote a nefarious political agenda. We are being played for saps.

#FakeNews: Media hacks have complete meltdown over Trump/Putin meeting

Guess they all forgot about this little open-mic moment…

Headlines I saw tonight:

From HuffPo:

  • ‘SHOCKING’ ‘UNPRECEDENTED’ ‘SHAMEFUL’ ‘CALAMITOUS’
  • Summit spin-out: Even GOP can’t defend him!
  • Pelosi: Presser “proof” Russia has dirt on Donald

From Hollywood Reporter:

  • Seth Meyers accuses Trump of “selling out our democracy” after Putin Summit
  • Stephen Colbert calls Trump-Putin meeting “Treason”
  • Schwarzenegger Slams Trump Over Putin Press Conference: “You Stood There Like a Little Wet Noodle”

From CBS News:

  • Trump sides with Putin over U.S. intel in remarkable press conference
  • Senator John McCain critical of conference
  • Commentary: Conservatives turn on Trump after Putin presser

From CNN:

  • These republicans typically support Trump. Today was different.
  • “How bad was that?” Trump aides question damage done
  • Don Lemon questions whether Trump is fit to lead the country

From NBC News:

  • Why Russian officials were gleeful at Trump’s diplomatic train wreck
  • “Shameful,” “disgraceful”: Trump slammed for news conference with Vladmir Putin
  • Trump’s capitulation to Putin part of a bigger (and more dangerous) pattern

FakeNews never disappoints.

DCG

Fake News: Millionaires flee California because of high taxes

You may have seen reports of millionaires fleeing California because of tax increases on the wealthy. An example is an article by Steve Straub in The Federalist on July 6, 2018, in which Straub claims a direct cause-and-effect relationship between Prop. 30 and millionaires leaving the state:

According to new research released by Charles Varner, associate director of the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality, California lost an estimated 138 high-income individuals following passage of the Proposition 30 income tax increase championed by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and approved by Golden State voters in 2012….

Prop. 30 raised the state’s top income tax rate by 8%, increasing it one percentage point from 12.3% to 13.3%, which is now the highest state income tax rate in the nation. Prop. 30 also hiked the tax rate on income between $300,000 and $500,000 by two percentage points, and raised the rate on income in excess of $500,000 by three percentage points.

In 2016, California voters extended the Prop. 30 income tax increases, which were originally scheduled to expire in 2019, until 2030. There will be an effort to extend those income tax hikes yet again prior to their expiration in 2030; book it now.

Varner’s new research examined taxpayers who were and were not hit by the Prop. 30 rate hikes. He found that in the two years before the Prop. 30 tax hike was imposed (2011 and 2012), net in-migration for both groups “was positive and roughly constant.” Yet following 2012 and the passage of Prop. 30, net in-migration dropped for households that were facing an effective tax increase of 0.5 percent or more. The reduction was greatest for households facing the highest effective tax hike, according to Varner and his coauthors, who include Allen Prohofsky of the California Franchise Tax Board….

Who could have ever predicted that raising taxes on the wealthy, higher than any other state in the country, would drive them out of the state?

Notice that nowhere in his article does Straub provide a link to his source — that study by “Charles Varner, associate director of the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality” — which is always cause for suspicion.

Nor does The Federalist enable reader comments on Straub’s article, which means I can’t even notify The Federalist if Steve Straub is mistaken — which he turns out to be.

So I went looking on the web for the original source.

I could not find this study on the website of the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality, but I did find a news release by the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality (SCPI) which says just the opposite of what Straub claims. Not only is the much-touted “millionaire migration” from California “simply a myth,” migration in and out of California has nothing to do with taxes.

The research was conducted by these two individuals at the request of the California Board of Equalization, allowing them unique access to California Franchise Tax Board income data:

  • Cristobal Young, an assistant professor of sociology at Stanford.
  • Charles Varner, then a doctoral candidate in sociology at Princeton University.

The SCPI news release states:

Embroiled in the California debate over Proposition 30‘s progressive income tax proposals, some politicians have argued that raising taxes on the highest earners will drive them to states with lower tax rates, taking businesses and jobs with them.

But a study released by the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality concludes that “millionaire migration” is simply a myth.

The reason the number of California millionaires varies from year to year has almost nothing to do with taxes, the researchers found. Instead, the numbers change as incomes fluctuate, most likely because investments are sensitive to market cycles.

Varner and Young looked at millionaire migration after California’s 2005 Mental Health Services Tax was enacted, as well as after state tax cuts in 1996.

They found that millionaires did not flee as a result of the tax increase (in fact, more millionaires moved into the state than out during that period), nor did millionaires from elsewhere move to California as a result of the tax cuts….

What could account for the fluctuations in California’s millionaire population? According to the study, it’s not due to tax changes or rich people leaving the state. Almost all of the fluctuation comes from income dynamics at the top, with taxpayers falling into and out of the millionaire income bracket as their income rises and falls across the million-dollar mark from year to year.

The temporary nature of such high earnings may help explain why the additional taxes in the study didn’t cause a noticeable flight of millionaires.

Personal connections seem to weigh more heavily than tax rates in deciding where to take up residence. “People are tied to states for different reasons,” Young said. “They don’t want to take their kids out of school, they want to stay connected with friends, with families … with business contacts.” People crowd together, from Silicon Valley to New York City, because of the returns associated with collaboration, he said….

Young added that looking at the tax flight issue only scratches the surface of state financial woes. “People need to think about the depth of California’s budget problems,” he said. “I think there’s much, much bigger things to worry about than this issue of tax flight because it’s really hard to find any evidence of it.”

Even more curious is the fact that the embedded links to the Young-Varner study in the SCPI news release don’t work. When you click the words “study” and “Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality” in the phrase “a study released by the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality,” you get this message:

Object not found!

As Alice in Wonderland would say, “Curiouser and curiouser!”

I finally found a link to the elusive study by Young and Varner in a July 6, 2018 article by Patrick Gleason for Forbes, in which Gleason repeats The Federalist‘s claim that millionaires flee from California because of tax hikes:

According to new research released by Charles Varner, associate director of the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality, California lost an estimated 138 high-income individuals following passage of the Proposition 30 income tax increase championed by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and approved by Golden State voters in 2012.

The only problem is that is simply not what the authors of the study actually wrote.

From Charles Varner and Cristobal Young, Millionaire Migration in California: The Impact of Top Tax Rates, 2012, pp. 2-4:

California is one of eight states that have established a “millionaire tax” in recent years. The popular appeal of these taxes is that they raise revenue from those seen to have greater ability to pay a higher rate on the highest portion of their incomes. The concern, however, is that millionaire taxes may lead to millionaire migration, with potentially serious loss of revenues for the state.

This study addresses the following key question: Do changes in California’s top income tax rates lead to changes in the migration of top incomes? . . . .

The authors summarized their findings, denying that there is a “millionaire migration” from California or and that this non-existent migration is due to taxes:

1. Migration is a very small component of changes in the number of millionaires in California. While the millionaire population sees a typical year-to-year fluctuation of more than 10,000 people, net migration sees a typical year-to-year fluctuation of 50 to 120 people. At the most, migration accounts for 1.2 percent of the annual changes in the millionaire population. The remaining 98.8 percent of changes in the millionaire population is due to income dynamics at the top – California residents growing into the millionaire bracket, or falling out of it again.

2. Using difference-in-differences models, which compare migration trends of the group experiencing the tax increase to a group of high-income earners not facing a tax change, neither in-migration or out-migration show a tax flight effect from the introduction of the 2005 Mental Health Services Tax. In fact, out-migration has a “wrong-signed” estimate: out-migration declined among millionaires after the tax was passed (both in absolute terms and compared to the control group). In other words, the highest-income Californians were less likely to leave the state after the millionaire tax was passed . . . .

4. The 1996 tax cuts on high incomes likewise had no consistent effect on migration. There was a small effect for those experiencing the small (0.7%) tax cut, but no effect at all for those experiencing the large (1.7%) rate cut. While we are planning to analyze the 1996 tax cut in greater detail, the overall picture is one of no clear effect.

Instead, what the study found was that whatever “millionaire migration” there is is due to personal factors, specifically divorce:

There is a strong out-migration effect for high-income earners who become divorced. In the year of divorce, the migration rate more than doubles, and remains slightly elevated for two years after the event. This shows that there are circumstances that do generate millionaire migration. The tax policy changes examined in this report are very modest compared to the life-impact of martial dissolution.

The authors’ explanation for why California millionaires don’t flee because of the state’s high taxes is this:

Most people who earn $1 million or more are having an unusually good year. Most “millionaires” earned less in years past, and they are not likely to earn this much again. A representative “millionaire” will only have a handful of years in the $1 million + tax bracket. The somewhat ephemeral nature of very high income is one reason why the top-income taxes examined here generate no observable tax flight. It is difficult to migrate away from an unusually good year of income.

To conclude, the Stanford study cited by countless conservative bloggers and writers as showing millionaires fleeing California because of high taxes, actually says just the opposite — millionaires are not leaving California, nor are they fleeing because of the state’s punitively higher taxes on high-income earners.

In other words, what those articles in The Federalist, Forbes, NewsMax, and blogs such as Lucianne.com report is FAKE NEWS.

It really does not serve the cause or interests of conservatives to distort the truth.

~Eowyn

Why no one trusts the media: New York Times gives reporter “reassignment” after claims she dated sources

ali watkins

The face of journalism at the NY Times…

No wonder the truth is hard to come by.

From Fox News: The New York Times reassigned Ali Watkins, the star reporter who was accused of being romantically involved with at least two potential sources, to a new beat outside of the paper’s Washington bureau. The paper’s top editor blasted Watkins’ actions as “unacceptable” but said she deserves a second chance.

The Times announced on Tuesday that Watkins will relocate to New York after an internal review of her romantic history with potential sources. The paper also announced she will receive a mentor and a “fresh start,” executive editor Dean Baquet told staffers.

Last month, a shocking indictment revealed that prior to joining the Times, Watkins, 26, had a three-year romantic relationship with Senate Intelligence Committee aide James A. Wolfe, 58, who was accused by federal prosecutors of lying about leaks of sensitive information to journalists. The indictment strongly suggested he was a source for Watkins and others, though Watkins reportedly has denied using her relationship for scoops.

The Gray Lady then published a blistering report about Watkins, its own employee, which revealed she dated another Intelligence Committee staffer. The report strongly implies Watkins rose to journalistic fame while using her married boyfriend as a source.

The Times report headlined, “How an Affair Between a Reporter and a Security Aide Has Rattled Washington Media,” and featured interviews with roughly 36 “friends and colleagues” of the scandalous former couple. Watkins carried on a three-year relationship with Wolfe, who is 30 years her senior and has been overseeing classified information delivered by the CIA and FBI since “before Watkins was born,” as the paper pointed out.

Jill Abramson, the former executive editor of the paper, blasted the paper for publishing the “horrible” deep dive into Watkins’ past in an email to Daily Beast reporter Lloyd Grove. “That story hung a 26-year-old young woman out to dry. It was unimaginable to me what the pain must be like for her,” Abramson said.

The Times’ decision was announced on the day before a holiday, when negative news is typically dumped to avoid unwarranted attention. The Times typically prides itself on being an advocate for transparency, so the timing has raised eyebrows across the media industry. Baquet sent a memo to his staff about the Watkins situation that was published by the paper on Tuesday.

“We hold our journalists and their work to the highest standards,” Baquet wrote. “We are giving Ali an opportunity to show that she can live up to them. I believe she can.”

Baquet said the Times “must be a humane place that can allow for second chances when there are mitigating circumstances.” Despite the decision not to terminate Watkins, Baquet did express displeasure with her action in the note.

“We are troubled by Ali’s conduct, particularly while she was employed by other news organizations. For a reporter to have an intimate relationship with someone he or she covers is unacceptable,” he wrote.

Watkins covered national security for McClatchy, HuffPost, BuzzFeed, and Politico before joining The New York Times. She has denied receiving information from Wolfe during their relationship.

“Although her disclosures varied in detail, none of her editors barred her from covering the intelligence committee, or explicitly told her that the relationship was inappropriate,” Times media correspondent Michael M. Grynbaum wrote on Tuesday. “She has said the relationship did not turn romantic until after those stories ran.”

Watkins was a finalist for the coveted Pulitzer Prize during her time at McClatchy.

“As she started her career, I believe she was not well served by some editors elsewhere who failed to respond appropriately to her disclosures about her relationships,” Baquet wrote, adding that the Times editors “also bear some responsibility.”

He said the Times’ inquiry “found that during the hiring process she disclosed aspects of her past relationships to some editors.”

Watkins received a letter in February notifying her that the Justice Department obtained her records, but the reporter did not inform the Times until June at the advice of her lawyer, according to the paper. Baquet wrote that those actions “put our news organization in a difficult position.”

Watkins issued the following statement: “I respect and understand the Times’ review and agree that I should have handled aspects of my past relationships and disclosures differently. I sincerely regret putting The Times in a difficult position and am very grateful for the support I’ve received from my editors and colleagues here. I also appreciate the review’s conclusion that my reporting has been fact-based and accurate.”

Wolfe, who was indicted this month on three counts of lying to FBI agents and accused of leaking information to the media, pleaded not guilty in front of a federal magistrate judge in Washington, D.C., earlier this month. Watkins has not written for the Times since his arrest.

“Reporters at The Times, and at other news organizations, have expressed unease over Ms. Watkins’s conduct. Women in particular say the episode has made them more vulnerable to an ugly and false stereotype often lobbed at female reporters, that they exchange sex for information,” Grynbaum wrote.

Baquet said the vetting process at the Times will tighten as a result of the Watkins investigation.

See also:

DCG

There really is a left-wing media conspiracy: Another secret journalist group discovered

conspiracy theory

The Mainstream Media like to make fun of conspiracy theories. Never mind the facts that:

The MSM’s dismissal-by-derision of conspiracy theories is another instance of the Left’s penchant for psychological projection. It turns out that it is the left-wing media who conspire with each other.

In July 2010, we found out about JournoList — a listserv created by Vox Media Editor-at-Large Ezra Klein, comprised of several hundred liberal journalists from reputable news outlets, as well as like-minded professors and activists, who conspired during the 2008 presidential campaign to protect Barack Obama, their favored candidate.

Note: A listserv is an electronic mailing list software application that acts as  an automated mailing list manager by enabling a sender to email all subscribers to the list via just one email.

According to the Daily Caller, the conspiratorial JournoList group “included dozens of straight-news reporters from major news organizations, including Time, Newsweek, The Associated Press, Reuters, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Politico, Bloomberg, Huffington Post, PBS and a large NPR affiliate in California.” (More here.)

Now, another conspiratorial left-wing journalist group has been uncovered by Harron Walker, a freelance contributor to the left-wing blog, Jezebel, after private messages posted by New York magazine journalist Jesse Singal were leaked. In existence for at least 8 years, with more than 400 members, the group is an “off-the-record” private discussion group for left-wing journalists hosted on Google Groups, similar to JournoList.

Walker writes on June 27, 2018:

Singal posted these messages in the discussion forum of a closed listserv he belongs to, hosted on Google Groups. The listserv, per its “About” page, aims to provide an “off-the-record discussion forum for left-of-center journalists, authors, academics and wonks”. It has been around for at least eight years (I found discussion posts dating back as far as 2010), and has just over 400 members (403 at the time of this writing). These members include New York Times best-selling authors, Ivy League academics, magazine editors, and other public intellectualsin short, a lot of important people who influence public discourse through their written work. They use the listserv’s forum to discuss current events, news from their respective fields, articles they’ve read, articles they’ve written, and other topics of public importance.

You’re probably wondering why Harron Walker, a left-wing blogger, would have issues with left-wing journalist Singal or his secret left-wing media group. That’s because Walker, who identifies itself as “transgender” and calls itself a “sweatiness girl,” is unhappy with Singal because the journalist recently wrote an article in The Atlantic on “gender desistance”—people who realize they’re not “transgenders” despite earlier declarations to the contrary. As for Singal’s secret group, Walker is miffed with the group because “None of these discussions brought trans voices to the table because the group has never had any out trans members, at least as far as I can tell.”

Charlie Nash of Breitbart notes that in addition to JournoList and the “new” group discovered by Walker:

“There have also been other secret journalist groups, such as Cabalist and GameJournoPros, the latter of which served as a group for left-wing games industry journalists who sought to mold the industry politically. GameJournoPros included journalists from Polygon, Ars Technica, Wired, Eurogamer, Destructoid, Kotaku, Joystiq, TechRadar, Associated Press, CNBC, USA Today, Vice’s Motherboard, VentureBeat, and CNet. Executive employees from games publishers were also present in the list.”

All of which would explain why TV news all sound the same. See “Who’s writing the script for TV news across America?“.

No wonder more than two-thirds of Americans, a full 72%, believe “traditional news outlets knowingly report false or misleading stories,” according to a recent poll. Only 25% of Americans (that many?) believe the media “rarely” or “never” deliberately report fake news.

See also:

~Eowyn

Why we call them #FakeNews: ABC’s Brian Ross leaving network after false Trump report

brian ross

They learned nothing from Dan “Fake but Accurate” Rather.

From Fox News: Beleaguered chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross is leaving ABC News seven months after he botched an “exclusive” report on Donald Trump and Russia that sent the stock market tumbling.

News President James Goldston announced to staffers on Monday that Ross, and his longtime producer Rhonda Schwartz, have “decided to leave the company” in a memo that was obtained by Fox News.

“In their long careers here, Brian, Rhonda and their team have been recognized with nearly every prestigious award in our business – an impressive tally of four George Polk awards, four Peabody awards, four duPonts, five Murrows, 17 News and Documentary Emmys and the Harvard Goldsmith Prize, in 2014, for the single best investigative report in print or broadcast,” Goldston wrote. (Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.)

The ABC News boss continued: “They’ve exposed government corruption at every level, international human rights abuses and fraud, uncovered dangerous working conditions, sexual abuse cover-ups and dishonest business practices.  Their work has led repeatedly to real changes in policy in the U.S. and around the world. They broke numerous stories following 9/11 about the government investigation of the attacks, from the identification of the terrorists to secret CIA prisons. Over the years they have built a team of the best investigative journalists in our industry, and they leave behind an outstanding group that will continue to break stories for many years to come.”

There was no immediate indication where Ross and Schwartz were headed next.

Earlier this year, ABC News demoted Ross when he returned from a suspension handed down after he reported incorrectly on live television that fired National Security Adviser Michael Flynn would testify that Trump had ordered him to make contact with Russians about foreign policy while Trump was still a candidate. The report raised the specter of Trump’s impeachment and sent the stock market plummeting.

After ABC was forced to retract the report, Goldston said on a staff conference call that he’d never felt more “rage, disappointment and frustration” in his entire career. In a statement, ABC News said Ross’ report “had not been fully vetted through our editorial standards process.”

“It is vital we get the story right and retain the trust we have built with our audience,” ABC’s statement added. “These are our core principles. We fell far short of that.”

Just after the hard-charging Ross was suspended, President Trump told a crowd in Florida that the ABC News reporter should have been fired.

“They took this fraudster from ABC,” Trump said. “They suspended him for a month. They should have fired him for what he wrote. He drove the stock market down 350 points in minutes, which by the way, tells you they really like me, right? When you think of it, and you know what he cost people? And I said to everybody: ‘get yourself a lawyer and sue ABC News, sue them.’”

Trump has continued to attack Ross and ABC parent company Disney over the gaffe. When Ross returned from suspension, he was reassigned to ABC News’ outside production house, Lincoln Square Productions. Many industry insiders assumed his days at ABC News were coming to an end when Goldston banned him from covering Trump.

The fumble was another in a series of black marks for Ross, who has been at ABC News since 1994 after spending nearly two decades at NBC. Perhaps most infamously, Ross reported in 2012 that Colorado movie theater shooter James Holmes may have had ties to the Tea Party movement. He has not been sanctioned for past errors. 

Schwartz — whose contract was reportedly tied to Ross — was also relocated to Lincoln Square.

The duo told colleagues that they aren’t finished reporting. “While we are signing off from ABC News, we are hardly leaving investigative journalism.  There is much more to do,” Ross and Schwartz wrote in a farewell memo.

DCG

Time magazine claims to have internal Navy memo on constructing temporary tent cities for 117,000 illegal border-crossers

The Left already are homicidal in rage over President Trump.

This surely will make their heads explode.

The Oxford Dictionary defines “invade” as:

  • Encroach or intrude on.
  • Enter in large numbers, especially with intrusive effects.
  • Enter so as to subjugate or occupy it.

By those definitions, the entry of millions of illegal aliens across the US-Mexico border certainly qualifies as an invasion.

Just as it is a criminal act for someone to enter your home without your permission, so it is with national borders.

Just as police arrest a home-invader, so it is the responsibility of a government to arrest those who cross that country’s borders without permission.

Just as police incarcerate home-invaders, so do national governments once they arrest illegal border-crossers.

But when illegal border-crossers come in large numbers, they overwhelm the capacity of local, state and federal prisons:

  • In the 1970s, an estimated 1.1 million illegal border-crossers entered the U.S. — o.5% of the U.S. population.
  • That number increased to 1.3 million in the 1980s, to over 5.8 million in the 1990s. (Wikipedia)
  • By 2007, the number of illegal “migrants” in the U.S. peaked at 12.2 million, or 4% of the total U.S. population. (Pew Research Center) The most recent estimate of the number of illegals in the U.S. was 12.1 million as of January 2014. (Department of Homeland Security)

In 2014, the Obama Administration placed some 7,700 illegal alien children in military bases in Texas, California and Oklahoma. The temporary shelters were shuttered after four months.

Unlike previous administrations, the Trump administration is actually enforcing U.S. immigration laws, which is one of Donald Trump’s campaign promises. What the jackals of the Mainstream Media call “separation of families” is actually the Trump administration enacting a measure that flowed from the  Clinton-era Flores vs. Reno Supreme Court decision allowing unaccompanied illegal border-crossing minors be held “in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the minor’s age and special needs.” The Left excoriate Trump’s enforcement of federal immigration laws a “zero tolerance” immigration policy, as if the U.S. doesn’t have a “zero tolerance” policy when it comes to other crimes, such as homicides.

Currently, there are tens of thousands of law-breakers being held awaiting criminal proceedings for illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexican border. They have to be sheltered somewhere. But current facilities are at their breaking point and the immigration courts face deep backlogs. To add to the problem, because of the MSM and Democrat hyenas’ manufactured outcry about Trump “separating” the families of illegal border-crossers, Trump’s solution is to hold the children — who previously had been housed elsewhere — with their law-breaker parents, further straining the system.

Currently, migrant children are being held in facilities run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). One facility, a converted Walmart in Texas, was recently opened to reporters, igniting another predictable media firestorm.

Last Wednesday, President Trump ordered the Pentagon to work with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to house as many as 20,000 illegal border-crosser children who are without an adult relative — the Unaccompanied Alien Children program. Yes, Virginia, heartless parents actually let their children illegally cross the US-Mexico border by themselves! But you don’t hear anything about that from the media jackals, do you?

DHS has completed assessments at Goodfellow Air Force Base, Dyess Air Force Base, Fort Bliss in Texas and Little Rock Air Force Base in Arkansas for potential use.

Now, Time magazine claims exclusively to have an internal U.S. Navy memo on plans to construct tent cities in California and Florida which will temporarily house up to 117,000 illegal border crossers.

Time‘s article is in its print issue of July 2, 2018, with that deliberately provocative and fake cover of a photoshopped image of President Trump as a bully towering over a tiny, crying child. To compound the fakery, the original image from which the child was cropped is also fake. (See “Proof that MSM news on Trump’s “family separation” is political propaganda“)

Philip Elliott and W. J. Hennigan archly and without bias (sarcasm alert!) report for Time, June 22, 2018, that the magazine obtained a draft U.S. Navy internal memo on plans to construct detention centers for tens of thousands of immigrants on remote bases in California, Alabama and Arizona: “The planning document indicates a potential growing military responsibility in an administration caught flat-footed in having to house waves of migrants awaiting civilian criminal proceedings.”

According to Time, the internal Navy memo outlines plans to build or propose to build “temporary and austere” tent cities in these states:

  • Alabama: House 25,000 migrants at abandoned airfields just outside the Florida panhandle near Mobile; at Navy Outlying Field Wolf in Orange Beach and nearby Navy Outlying Field Silverhill.
  • California: House 47,000 people at former Naval Weapons Station Concord, near San Francisco; 47,000 people at Camp Pendleton, the Marines’ largest training facility located along the Southern California coast.
  • Arizona: The planning memo proposes further study of housing an undetermined number of migrants at the Marine Corps Air Station near Yuma.

The military has not yet been ordered to construct these new detention facilities, but the internal Navy memo estimates that the Navy would spend about $233 million to construct and operate a facility for 25,000 people for a six-month time period. The proposal suggests these tent cities be built to last between six months and one year. Military officials propose a 60-day timeline to build the first temporary tent facility for 5,000 adults. After that, they could add room for 10,000 additional individuals each month.

The memo was written by Phyllis L. Bayer, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations and Environment, in anticipation for a request from DHS. It recommends Navy Secretary Richard Spencer sign off on the plan, which allocates roughly 450 square feet per immigrant held for housing, support staff and security, and send it to Defense Secretary James Mattis.

See also “Mexican presidential candidate calls for mass migrant invasion of U.S.

~Eowyn