Published on May 14, 2019


By Joshua Caplan
Speaking at a podium steps from the spot where President Donald Trump announced his own presidential run in 2015, the Democrat said he had come to Trump Tower to promote a new city air pollution law requiring skyscraper owners to cut greenhouse gas emissions or face fines.
De Blasio said Trump’s buildings in the city could face a combined $2.1 million in annual fines if they don’t reduce emissions by 2030.
“President Trump, you’re on notice. Your polluting buildings are part of the problem,” he claimed.
However, de Blasio’s speech was all-but drowned out by a throng of Trump supporters who demonstrated behind him on the building’s escalators, booing, whistling, chanting and holding up signs with messages including “Failed mayor” and “Worst mayor ever.” Footage of the heckling was shared to social media.


Loud music also played over the building’s sound system for part of the event. De Blasio had to shout to be heard.
“It’s so nice of them to serenade us at Trump Tower. Clearly, they are uncomfortable with the truth,” he said.

Under a deal that President Trump struck with the city decades ago, Trump Tower’s lobby is considered a public space for much of each day.
New York City’s $14 billion “Green New Deal” aims to reduce emissions by roughly 30 percent. The plan will ban new glass buildings deemed “inefficient” and strive for carbon neutrality by 2050.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

by Bob Price
On Friday, officials in the Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol Sector began flying migrants from McAllen, Texas, to Del Rio, Texas, the Washington Post reported. The flights are operated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) but the migrants remain in the custody of Border Patrol.
The Post reported that the flights are aimed at moving single adults and family units from South Texas detention facilities as authorities prepare for even-larger numbers of family units and unaccompanied minors. These types of flights are highly unusual for Border Patrol, the newspaper reported. The agency resorted to utilizing flights which carry up to 135 souls because all buses are being utilized to transport migrants from the border to the initial processing centers. The flights are said to cost taxpayers about $16,000 each or about $120 per migrant.
San Angelo Live reported that migrants are being flown to Laughlin Air Force Base near Del Rio. Border Patrol officials then utilize buses to move the migrants to the Border Patrol station. Border Patrol officials stress these are “non-criminal alien family units.”
After processing, the Del Rio Sector will likely release family units with no criminal history or illnesses into local communities.
ICE officials are also screening family units in the Del Rio Sector for false or fraudulent family claims, Acting ICE Director Matthew T. Albence told Breitbart News in an interviewlast week.
“We have been working these cases from an investigative standpoint for quite a while,” Director Albence told Breitbart News. “What we’re doing now that is a little different is surging the additional resources to the ports of entry and Border Patrol stations where these individuals are being arrested and being processed. We’ve got teams in seven different locations who are conducting interviews of people who appear to be fraudulent families or where we have concerns that they are not who they say they are.”
“The results have been staggering thus far,” the director stated. “In just a couple of weeks, we’ve interviewed 256 family units and identified 65 fraudulent families. Almost three out of every ten families we’ve interviewed have become fraudulent.”
In an effort to more quickly determine the instances of false familial claims, federal officials are about to deploy a “rapid DNA” testing program in two locations. He said this specific type of DNA testing will return a result in 90 minutes that can identify a parent-child relationship.
Albence said the Rapid DNA testing will being this week. “We hope to have some results next week.”

Researchers from Northwestern University performed an “algorithm audit” of the ‘Google Top Stories’ box, which is a major driver of traffic to news publishers and therefore prime online real estate. They examined results for nearly 200 searches relating to news events for one month in late 2017 and found “a left-leaning ideological skew.”
The researchers did allow some leeway for Google to defend itself, however, saying that while the left-leaning bias was detected, it is possible that the dominance of particular sources is a result of “successful strategic behavior” by those sources to achieve “algorithmic recognizability” — but whatever the reason, liberal sources still far eclipsed conservatives ones.
CNN, perhaps the outlet most-reviled by conservatives, was Google’s overall favorite source. Of the 6,302 articles appearing on Google’s ‘top stories’ during the month in focus, more than 10 percent came from CNN. The New York Times and Washington Post were up next, garnering 6.5 and 5.6 percent of the results, respectively.

Fox News, the most mainstream right-wing outlet, was the source for only 3 percent of stories appearing in the top box. Then it was back to liberal outlets, with the BBC, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, Politico and ABC News filling out the rest of the top 10. Overall, 62.4 percent of the most common sources were left-leaning, while only 11.3 perfect were said to be right-leaning.
Ironically, despite the heavy promotion from Google in the online realm, CNN’s overall audience declined by a colossal 26 percent in April compared to a year earlier — and network boss Jeff Zucker admitted last November that CNN’s audience just “goes away” any time the channel switches from its (overwhelmingly negative) coverage of President Donald Trump to other topics. So it seems CNN is stuck in a vicious cycle; criticized for focusing too much on negative Trump stories, yet not being able to stop for fear of losing more viewers.

Perhaps an even more damning indictment than Google’s detected liberal bias, however, is that nearly all (86 percent) of the stories promoted by the search giant came from just 20 sources across the entire internet, which doesn’t exactly display much of a commitment to diversity of information and opinion.
ALSO ON RT.COM‘Poisonous connection’ of big tech: Google staff confer over anti-Trump search tweak
Publishers selected for the top box receive “a significant boost in traffic” which demonstrates Google’s ability to “pick winners and losers” based on where they decide to direct most of our attention. Such power and bias in favor of major sources could also be linked to the decline of local news, which is competing in an unfair online environment, the study suggested.
The detection of Google’s left-leaning preferences will hardly come as a shock to conservatives, who have been complaining in recent years that powerful online platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Google have all shown clear bias against conservative perspectives. The grumbling has not been without cause, either.
Most recently, Facebook slapped a number of popular conservative commentators with permanent lifetime bans — and Twitter has been caught out ‘shadowbanning’ Republicans and is accused of being quicker to suspend or ban conservative users over liberals for alleged rule-breaking.
Yet, while Facebook and Twitter have engaged in what many analysts and critics are calling direct political censorship, the story is more complicated when it comes to Google.
The researchers found that it’s not simply whether a source is left or right-leaning that determines whether it goes into the top stories box. Writing for the Columbia Journalism Review, one of the study authors acknowledged that there appears to be more news produced on the left overall, something which also affects the results. Even so, Google’s curation algorithms were still found to be “slightly magnifying” the already left-leaning skew in online news production.
Then there’s the bias toward timeliness; the fresher the story, the more likely it was to be promoted in the top box. The researchers called this Google’s “predilection towards recency” and said that huge news organizations like CNN which have the potential to quickly generate fresh content “may be better positioned” to garner more attention.
If Google really values diversity, the authors suggest it should acknowledge that high-quality journalism can have a longer shelf life and “consider relaxing the timeliness constraint to widen the scope of sources available to its curation algorithm.”
The results put to bed the notion, promoted by many Democrats and liberals that Google algorithm bias is a myth. Rep. Jerry Nadler last year called the notion of liberal bias online a “delusion” and a “right-wing conspiracy theory” — although Nadler, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee is still a chief proponent of the disproven conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election.
Google has always denied that it is politically biased or abusing its monopoly position, but it looks like the search engine has plenty of work to do on its curation algorithms before it can convince anyone of its fairness.
Published on May 13, 2019


By Hank Berrien
Shanahan stated, according to Stars and Stripes: “The Department of Defense is fully engaged in addressing the crisis on our southwest border, with more than 4,000 servicemembers and 19 aircraft currently supporting the Department of Homeland Security. Today, I authorized the transfer of $1.5 billion toward the construction of more than 80 miles of border barrier. The funds were drawn from a variety of sources, including cost savings, programmatic changes, and revised requirements, and therefore will have minimal impact on force readiness.”
The additional $1.5 billion comes after the transfer of $1 billion for an additional 60 miles of wall in Yuma, Arizona and El Paso, Texas, that was made in March.
Fox News reports, “But the plan to divert Pentagon funding has sparked criticism from congressional Democrats, who accused Shanahan of not seeking approval to ‘reprogram’ the funds without congressional authority. Shanahan and other senior defense officials claimed in response they did not have to get permission from Congress despite the objections from Democratic lawmakers.”
The funds being transferred come from the Afghan Security Forces Fund, which describes itself as providing “assistance to the security forces of Afghanistan to include the provision of equipment, supplies, services, training, facility and infrastructure repair, renovation and construction, and funding.”
AP reported in late February that Shanahan visited the southern border and asserted, “How do we get out of treating the symptoms and get at the root of the issue? I don’t want to just add resources and not fix the problem.” AP wrote, “Shanahan said he was not volunteering the Pentagon to take over any part of border control, which is the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security. But he said his visit led him to question whether there should be a ‘wholesale redesign’ of the way border control is done by the federal government.”
The Hill reported on Friday that Democrats would fight against transferring money for the wall:
The House Appropriations Committee on Thursday advanced a bill that would prohibit using military construction funds on a border wall. The prohibition, included in the fiscal 2020 military construction and veterans affairs appropriations bill, would prohibit funds from the 2015 through 2020 fiscal years from being “obligated, expended or used to design, construct, or carry out a project to construct a wall, barrier, fence, or road” along the U.S. southern border. And House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-Wash.) told Shanahan during a panel hearing in March that the Pentagon would likely lose the reprogramming authority if it moved forward with the $1 billion funding transfer.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) added, “Funds for the wall should not be stolen from previously approved vital military construction projects that are a higher priority than any wall … Military construction dollars should be used only for the purpose they are provided, which is to support the Department of Defense’ mission, service members and their families.”