Month: December 2018

So now the list is out about Hollywood’s least-bankable actors, an interesting list compiled by 24/7 Wall Street. It comes out shortly after an SEO firm called Verve Search compiled a list of which actors get the worst reviews. End of the year is list time, and in Hollywood, the lists getting attention in that benighted industry are all negatives.

First thing you notice is that quite a few of them on both lists are left-wing loudmouths, always trying to enlighten us adamantly with their underdeveloped political views. Vaunted Robert De Niro is a big presence on the second worst-reviews list; Scarlett Johansson, Keira Knightley, Charlize Theron, Antonio Banderas, Julianne Moore, Colin Farrell are all famous for lecturing us about leftwing causes on the first list, showing that they’re unbankable.

That’s to say production companies lose money on these people any time they hire them. That’s sort of the opposite of ‘star,’ that’s better described as ‘dud.’

But there they are, still acting and still getting movie roles and still saying left-wing things, with zero regard for how such blather might affect box office sales. Off they go, and the million-dollar contracts to these supposed A-listers keep rolling out. What other business or industry goes out of its way to hire people who have obviously proven themselves to be liabilities to the companies’ bottom lines, paying them millions of dollars and calling them ‘stars’? Not normal companies, that’s for sure. Hollywood companies are different.

Which raises questions as to what might be going on.

No business can afford to hire money-costing underperformers, shelling out multi-million-dollar contracts for losses. So maybe there’s more to the story. If you want one theory, these data might just suggest that these people aren’t the money losers the compiled data say they are. 

And the Hollywood companies might just be cooking the books, given that 80% of all Hollywood movies “lose money.” That’s an old truism in the entertainment industry – make every movie a loss in order to avoid paying taxes, and more important, to avoid paying out royalties for hit performances. It’s done by looking at the cost structure – take a look at this blog piece here about why all Hollywood movies seem to lose money:

These films are not a cautionary tale about how wasteful spending can turn a commercial success into a net failure. They had perfectly average production budgets and expenses for movies of their scale. Their lack of profitability, in fact, is typical. Over 80% of Hollywood movies fail to turn a profit. 

Reading this statistic, we agreed with Darth Vader that this seems implausible. Where is his pot of gold that lures businessmen and investors to Hollywood?

Buried in paperwork. Hollywood’s lack of profits exists only on paper, the result of creative accounting practices so institutionalized and infamous that a Wikipedia page on “Hollywood Accounting” includes the inside joke that Hollywood’s most creative minds are the accountants. Instead of cooking the books to hide losses and inflate profits, Hollywood accountants inflate costs to ensure that even smash hits stay in the red. 

A 2010 Planet Money podcast with “Hollywood economist” Edward Epstein explains how it’s done. For each new film, a movie “is set up as its own corporation, the entire point of which is to lose money” by paying fees to the studio producing the movie. So if Superhero Studios decides to film Spider-Man 10, they create a shell company, Spider-Man 10 Incorporated. Superhero Studios then overcharges Spider-Man 10 Inc for every aspect of making, marketing, and distributing the movie. By the time Superhero Studios finishes paying itself (through Spider-Man 10 Inc) to perform work that costs $100 million, Spider-Man 10 Inc will be on the hook for one billion dollars.

It’s part of a famous load of business practices that raise eyebrows to industry outsiders. A well-known investor I once knew said the big reason he never wanted to invest in Hollywood productions was the bad accounting over leftover sets. Hollywood typically lavishes out spending on furniture and cars and designer clothes for production sets and when the program shuts down, the merchandise all disappears. The production companies write it off as losses, items of no value. But somehow it ends up as furniture in movie producer kids’ homes and other unlikely places, very nice emoluments for items used once. He thought that was a sign of a fundamentally dishonest industry and he wanted no part of it.

Now we have the least bankable actors list, and well, given Hollywood economics, for these guys, it’s probably a badge of honor.

So now the list is out about Hollywood’s least-bankable actors, an interesting list compiled by 24/7 Wall Street. It comes out shortly after an SEO firm called Verve Search compiled a list of which actors get the worst reviews. End of the year is list time, and in Hollywood, the lists getting attention in that benighted industry are all negatives.

First thing you notice is that quite a few of them on both lists are left-wing loudmouths, always trying to enlighten us adamantly with their underdeveloped political views. Vaunted Robert De Niro is a big presence on the second worst-reviews list; Scarlett Johansson, Keira Knightley, Charlize Theron, Antonio Banderas, Julianne Moore, Colin Farrell are all famous for lecturing us about leftwing causes on the first list, showing that they’re unbankable.

That’s to say production companies lose money on these people any time they hire them. That’s sort of the opposite of ‘star,’ that’s better described as ‘dud.’

But there they are, still acting and still getting movie roles and still saying left-wing things, with zero regard for how such blather might affect box office sales. Off they go, and the million-dollar contracts to these supposed A-listers keep rolling out. What other business or industry goes out of its way to hire people who have obviously proven themselves to be liabilities to the companies’ bottom lines, paying them millions of dollars and calling them ‘stars’? Not normal companies, that’s for sure. Hollywood companies are different.

Which raises questions as to what might be going on.

No business can afford to hire money-costing underperformers, shelling out multi-million-dollar contracts for losses. So maybe there’s more to the story. If you want one theory, these data might just suggest that these people aren’t the money losers the compiled data say they are. 

And the Hollywood companies might just be cooking the books, given that 80% of all Hollywood movies “lose money.” That’s an old truism in the entertainment industry – make every movie a loss in order to avoid paying taxes, and more important, to avoid paying out royalties for hit performances. It’s done by looking at the cost structure – take a look at this blog piece here about why all Hollywood movies seem to lose money:

These films are not a cautionary tale about how wasteful spending can turn a commercial success into a net failure. They had perfectly average production budgets and expenses for movies of their scale. Their lack of profitability, in fact, is typical. Over 80% of Hollywood movies fail to turn a profit. 

Reading this statistic, we agreed with Darth Vader that this seems implausible. Where is his pot of gold that lures businessmen and investors to Hollywood?

Buried in paperwork. Hollywood’s lack of profits exists only on paper, the result of creative accounting practices so institutionalized and infamous that a Wikipedia page on “Hollywood Accounting” includes the inside joke that Hollywood’s most creative minds are the accountants. Instead of cooking the books to hide losses and inflate profits, Hollywood accountants inflate costs to ensure that even smash hits stay in the red. 

A 2010 Planet Money podcast with “Hollywood economist” Edward Epstein explains how it’s done. For each new film, a movie “is set up as its own corporation, the entire point of which is to lose money” by paying fees to the studio producing the movie. So if Superhero Studios decides to film Spider-Man 10, they create a shell company, Spider-Man 10 Incorporated. Superhero Studios then overcharges Spider-Man 10 Inc for every aspect of making, marketing, and distributing the movie. By the time Superhero Studios finishes paying itself (through Spider-Man 10 Inc) to perform work that costs $100 million, Spider-Man 10 Inc will be on the hook for one billion dollars.

It’s part of a famous load of business practices that raise eyebrows to industry outsiders. A well-known investor I once knew said the big reason he never wanted to invest in Hollywood productions was the bad accounting over leftover sets. Hollywood typically lavishes out spending on furniture and cars and designer clothes for production sets and when the program shuts down, the merchandise all disappears. The production companies write it off as losses, items of no value. But somehow it ends up as furniture in movie producer kids’ homes and other unlikely places, very nice emoluments for items used once. He thought that was a sign of a fundamentally dishonest industry and he wanted no part of it.

Now we have the least bankable actors list, and well, given Hollywood economics, for these guys, it’s probably a badge of honor.

Donald Trump has expressed a desire to fire Federal Reserve Board Chairman Jerome Powell over recent weeks because of a raising of interest rates by the Fed.

Those increases have led to a big sell off in the stock market, with the Dow dropping 7% this week alone. For the year, the Dow is down 10%, coming off record highs during Trump’s first year in office.

The president nominates the Fed chairman and the Board of Governors, but can he fire him?

CNBC:

While the president appoints the Fed’s board of governors, including the chairman, the central bank “derives its authority from the Congress, which created the System in 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act,” according to the Fed’s website.

“The Board reports to and is directly accountable to the Congress but, unlike many other public agencies, it is not funded by congressional appropriations,” the site says

“The President can nominate a chair but once the chair is confirmed, the president is out of it and the only way you can remove a chair from office is literally if they broke the law. Congress will have to find a cause to remove them from office through a vote and a procedure,” Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley’s chief U.S. economist, told CNBC in October.

But Trump has already broken with precedent through his repeated criticism in the second half of this year of the Fed and the chairman to the press and via Twitter, including this week before the central bank hiked rates. Other presidents privately tried to influence the Fed, but none did so in such a public and forceful matter.

Past presidents have sometimes expressed frustration and concern over the Fed’s monetary policies. Has Trump been more “forceful” in his statements? Trump is not the most circumspect of presidents, so while it’s probably true, the question is, do the president’s complaints matter? As an independent body, the Federal Reserve is not supposed to be swayed by politics. The Fed was set up that way to immunize  them from the fickle winds of partisanship. But these guys read the newspapers the same as everyone else and it’s hard to imagine the Fed being oblivious to political winds.

As to whether Trump can actually fire Powell, he can’t. It’s not even clear how Congress would go about getting rid of a Fed chairman because it’s never been done before and there’s no procedure to do it. Barring some exposure of criminal activity by Powell, his job is secure.

Some analysts are asking what the fallout would be if Trump tried to fire Powell:

The independence of the Fed is one of the pillars of confidence global investors have in the U.S. financial system. Powell’s removal would undermine that confidence because it would now seem the most important central bank was now under the control of a politician, who may not always have the best interests of the economy at heart. Sometimes it’s necessary to raise interest rates to keep inflation in check. The Fed has a dual mandate: to maximize employment and stabilize inflation.

After Trump first began his criticism of the Fed in July, former Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher told CNBC the president was out of line.

“One of the hallmarks of our great American economy is preserving the independence of the Federal Reserve. No president should interfere with the workings of the Fed,” Fisher said. “Were I Chairman Powell, I would ignore the president and do my job and I am confident he will do just that.”

As the economy heats up under Trump, it was inevitable that interest rates, which stood at close to 0% for nearly a decade, would rise in order to keep inflation at bay. At this, the Fed has been successful. Trump should leave well enough alone and accept the usual ups and downs of the stock market. Chances are, by the time election day 2020 rolls around, the market will have recovered.

Donald Trump has expressed a desire to fire Federal Reserve Board Chairman Jerome Powell over recent weeks because of a raising of interest rates by the Fed.

Those increases have led to a big sell off in the stock market, with the Dow dropping 7% this week alone. For the year, the Dow is down 10%, coming off record highs during Trump’s first year in office.

The president nominates the Fed chairman and the Board of Governors, but can he fire him?

CNBC:

While the president appoints the Fed’s board of governors, including the chairman, the central bank “derives its authority from the Congress, which created the System in 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act,” according to the Fed’s website.

“The Board reports to and is directly accountable to the Congress but, unlike many other public agencies, it is not funded by congressional appropriations,” the site says

“The President can nominate a chair but once the chair is confirmed, the president is out of it and the only way you can remove a chair from office is literally if they broke the law. Congress will have to find a cause to remove them from office through a vote and a procedure,” Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley’s chief U.S. economist, told CNBC in October.

But Trump has already broken with precedent through his repeated criticism in the second half of this year of the Fed and the chairman to the press and via Twitter, including this week before the central bank hiked rates. Other presidents privately tried to influence the Fed, but none did so in such a public and forceful matter.

Past presidents have sometimes expressed frustration and concern over the Fed’s monetary policies. Has Trump been more “forceful” in his statements? Trump is not the most circumspect of presidents, so while it’s probably true, the question is, do the president’s complaints matter? As an independent body, the Federal Reserve is not supposed to be swayed by politics. The Fed was set up that way to immunize  them from the fickle winds of partisanship. But these guys read the newspapers the same as everyone else and it’s hard to imagine the Fed being oblivious to political winds.

As to whether Trump can actually fire Powell, he can’t. It’s not even clear how Congress would go about getting rid of a Fed chairman because it’s never been done before and there’s no procedure to do it. Barring some exposure of criminal activity by Powell, his job is secure.

Some analysts are asking what the fallout would be if Trump tried to fire Powell:

The independence of the Fed is one of the pillars of confidence global investors have in the U.S. financial system. Powell’s removal would undermine that confidence because it would now seem the most important central bank was now under the control of a politician, who may not always have the best interests of the economy at heart. Sometimes it’s necessary to raise interest rates to keep inflation in check. The Fed has a dual mandate: to maximize employment and stabilize inflation.

After Trump first began his criticism of the Fed in July, former Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher told CNBC the president was out of line.

“One of the hallmarks of our great American economy is preserving the independence of the Federal Reserve. No president should interfere with the workings of the Fed,” Fisher said. “Were I Chairman Powell, I would ignore the president and do my job and I am confident he will do just that.”

As the economy heats up under Trump, it was inevitable that interest rates, which stood at close to 0% for nearly a decade, would rise in order to keep inflation at bay. At this, the Fed has been successful. Trump should leave well enough alone and accept the usual ups and downs of the stock market. Chances are, by the time election day 2020 rolls around, the market will have recovered.

(CNSNews.com) – A 52-year-old illegal alien from Honduras pled guilty on Thursday to “transportation of a person for criminal sexual purposes,” according to a statement released today by the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

“According to court documents, Carlos Arturo Rodezno-Quintanilla, 52, started sexually abusing Jane Doe when she was 4 years old,” said the statement from the U.S. Attorney.

“In June, Rodezno-Quintanilla came to Florida from Honduras with the now 13-year-old minor,” the statement said. “From there, the two traveled to Norfolk, where Rodezno-Quintanilla continued to sexually abuse the girl.

“The girl contacted the Norfolk Police Department to report the abuse shortly after arriving in Norfolk,” said the U.S. Attorney’s statement. “Rodezno-Quintanilla entered the United States illegally in June, was immediately encountered by immigration officers, and was on supervision while waiting further court proceedings.

“Rodezno-Quintanilla had absconded from supervision when he was found in Norfolk,” said the U.S. Attorney’s statement.

“Rodezno-Quintanilla pleaded guilty to one count of transportation of a person for criminal sexual purposes, and faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison when sentenced on March 26, 2019,” said the statement.

Here is the full text of the statement released by the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia:

Illegal Alien Pleads Guilty to Transporting Minor for Sexual Purposes

NORFOLK, Va. – A Honduran man who illegally entered the United States pleaded guilty yesterday to transportation of a person for criminal sexual purposes.

“Our office is committed to protecting the most vulnerable victims of our society,” said G. Zachary Terwilliger, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. “We have a long history of making these cases a priority and will continue to work closely with our local and state partners to ensure that our most vulnerable victims receive the justice and protections they rightfully deserve.”

According to court documents, Carlos Arturo Rodezno-Quintanilla, 52, started sexually abusing Jane Doe when she was 4 years old. In June, Rodezno-Quintanilla came to Florida from Honduras with the now 13-year-old minor. From there, the two traveled to Norfolk, where Rodezno-Quintanilla continued to sexually abuse the girl. The girl contacted the Norfolk Police Department to report the abuse shortly after arriving in Norfolk. Rodezno-Quintanilla entered the United States illegally in June, was immediately encountered by immigration officers, and was on supervision while waiting further court proceedings. Rodezno-Quintanilla had absconded from supervision when he was found in Norfolk.

Rodezno-Quintanilla pleaded guilty to one count of transportation of a person for criminal sexual purposes, and faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison when sentenced on March 26, 2019. Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after taking into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by U.S. Attorney’s Offices and the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to better locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.justice.gov/psc

G. Zachary Terwilliger, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Michael K. Lamonea, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Norfolk, and Larry D. Boone, Chief of Norfolk Police, made the announcement after U.S. Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller accepted the plea. Assistant U.S. Attorney Elizabeth M. Yusi is prosecuting the case.

A copy of this press release is located on the website of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. Related court documents and information is located on the website of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia or on PACER by searching for Case No. 2:18-cr-166.

Few could argue against the fact that the manner in which then-candidate Donald Trump successfully leveraged his incredible social media presence and following during the 2016 primary and general election played a significant factor in his eventual electoral victory.

With the 2020 election season fast-approaching, incumbent elected officials and prospective candidates for office would be wise to waste no additional time in attempting to duplicate that successful result for themselves by growing and similarly leveraging a strong social media presence and following.

The Western Journal recently conducted an investigation and analysis into the data surrounding the Facebook pages of elected members of Congress, and while that analysis was largely focused on account interaction rates as they related to Facebook’s News Feed algorithms, it uncovered plenty of other relevant data as well.

Of the 463 members of Congress who maintained an active Facebook account, 315 of them had fewer than 20,000 followers. Those followers are worldwide and the data suggests that, on average, only about 50 percent of any given politician’s followers are actual constituents who could vote for them, meaning those members of Congress are followed on social media by only about 10,000 actual constituents.

Meanwhile, the 2018 midterm elections showed that the average winning candidate received roughly 125,000 votes. But if a candidate’s social media following of actual constituents is such a small percentage of the vote total needed for victory, how can it be leveraged to play a significant factor? Quite simply, by expanding their base of constituents on social media through the use of ad campaigns and data analysis.

TRENDING: Here’s Vince Vaughn’s Extremely Blunt Interview on Guns

It has been estimated that it costs about $3 to obtain a like and follow on Facebook from a constituent in any given city, county, district, state or zip code as part of an ad campaign, but that is arguably the best way to accumulate and grow a base of followers who are actual constituents on social media.

A successful ad campaign to attract new followers should run for 30 days — with the process repeated until Election Day — and involve the use of short videos, roughly 15 to 30 seconds in length, accompanied by written copy in a post. There should be multiple versions of the video and copy — which must be constantly analyzed both through Facebook and external artificial intelligence programs to find what works and what doesn’t — with the better performing ads garnering more play while poorly performing ads are dropped.

Considering the estimates that only half of all followers are constituents, along with the targeted vote total of about 125,000, candidates should aim for accumulating upwards of 100,000 followers — which would equate to about 50,000 votes — for a “winning base.” Candidates can also shoot for 200,000 followers, which would provide a “winning margin” by garnering about 100,000 votes from constituents, which wouldn’t count additional votes for the candidate from constituents who aren’t on social media.

However, gaining tons of followers is pointless if the candidate isn’t saying what those constituents want to hear to earn their votes. That means it is crucial that candidates learn as much as they can about what their constituents actually want.

One way to do this is simply by directly asking social media followers what they want — via an ad campaign — and then incorporating the answers received into the candidate’s campaign message. Another way to learn what constituents want is through the use of Data Acquisition Programs, which can utilize both artificial intelligence and questionnaires to determine the desires of constituents.

A useful thing about Data Acquisition Programs is that they can be malleable to focus on certain relevant factors — such as age, gender, race, etc. — or specific issues important to certain areas. This can provide important information that can be used to more effectively target other local constituents on social media that have yet to be added to the accumulated total of followers.

As previously noted, social media ad campaigns should be run early, often and continuously throughout the election season, as research has shown that — at least with regard to businesses and customers — constant and repeated contact tends to win over targeted customers, or in this case, constituents.

Research has further shown that an estimated 90 percent of Americans check their email or social media accounts within the first 15 minutes of their day, and check in again repeatedly throughout the day until they go back to sleep … as much as 300 times per day regularly for some, to as little as 80 times per day for people on vacation. What that means is that candidates need to seize the opportunity to consistently place their ads so people will not miss them, even at an acceptable minimum of one ad per day.

It is worth noting that the ads don’t necessarily have to be professionally produced to be effective, though they should be somewhat aesthetically pleasing and be clear and concise and focused on the topic at hand. Nor does the ad even need to be watched completely to be effective, as studies have shown that a watch rate of a mere 50 percent — meaning the viewer only watched about half of the video — indicates that particular view was “not an accident” and signifies the viewer is at least somewhat interested in what the candidate has to say.

RELATED: New 2020 Poll Shows Just How Much Trouble Democrats Are Facing

In the end, we see a winning formula emerge from all of this: Accumulate as many social media followers as possible, ask and observe what constituents want from a candidate, formulate ads that directly address those wants and needs, express gratitude for the support of those followers to keep them hooked and then rinse and repeat until Election Day. In this way, a candidate can utilize social media and other technologies to not only gain a larger following and grow a closer relationship with them by paying attention to their desires, but also leverage that following and relationships into electoral victory.

Of course, the tech powers that be are not ignorant of this at all, which is in part one of the reasons why the tech giants have seemingly cracked down and censored certain, predominately conservative, voices in politics if only to avoid a similar outcome as what happened in 2016. That is why it is so important for elected officials and their constituents to push back against the tech giants and social media platforms in opposition to the censorship, in order that this incredible tool for reaching constituent voters and winning elections remains available to everyone, regardless of ideology.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

If you don’t have time to listen, read the transcript. I’m treating it as vindication for my theory earlier that any anger MAGA Nation feels towards Trump for failing on the wall will be redirected in short order towards other actors. Rush hits everyone hard here except POTUS — the treacherous elitist Democrats, the dreaded media, the spineless RINOs in Congress who won’t fight. His harshest words for Trump are that it seems “out of character” for him to cave and that he was elected to “bulldoze” through all of this dysfunction — which is true, by the way, and that point shouldn’t be overlooked. Undeniably, it’s Congress rather than Trump that’s failed to follow through on the wall. But his whole pitch on the trail in 2016 was that he wouldn’t let his agenda to be thwarted. Taking no for an answer from Congress is what soft cuckish amateur negotiators like Obama do. Trump, through dealmaking savvy and sheer force of alpha-male will, would “bulldoze” right through them, to borrow Rush’s term. “I alone can fix it,” the man said.

And now here we are.

Limbaugh’s MAGA-fied callers are also straining to blame anyone but the president for the surrender. A sample:

I’m just shaking with rage, Rush. I appreciate everything Trump’s done, but I’ve had it. You wanted to know when people were gonna start peeling away from him? It’s not so much that I’m peeling away from him. I’m peeling away from the Republican Party. They’re cowards. They’ve been spineless the whole time he’s been in office. They could be on TV just as loud as the Democrats — and I don’t blame him, you know? He’s done his best. I appreciate everything the man has done. I still love him, but I can’t take it no more.

Another:

I think Trump is brilliant. We’ve handed him the worst group of you RINOs on the planet. He could not fight this battle right now ’cause Pelosi was right. “You don’t have the votes. Your RINOs aren’t helping you,” and he’s right. If they put this off ’til February, it’s to Schumer and Pelosi and Trump in the room, and our RINOs… He got Ryan to quit. He got 45 RINOs to walk away. He has to drain our swamp before he can drain the Democrat media swamp.

Do these sound like people who, per Ann Coulter, will punish Trump in 2020 for having failed them? They’re Trumpists, not nationalists. Even Rush, a man with nothing to lose, whose media legacy is secure and who couldn’t spend all the money he’s made in a dozen lifetimes, felt obliged to say towards the end of today’s spiel, “I guess I could be easily misunderstood on this. I’m not throwing Trump overboard and I’m not abandoning anything here.” Remember the cardinal rule of Republican populism: Trump cannot fail, he can only be failed.

I have a fun way to test whether Republican voters are nationalists or Trumpists, though: Have Coulter primary Trump. Why not? She’s one of the few high-profile right-wingers who could credibly run to his right. I think she’s sincerely exasperated too that Trump hasn’t been more insistent on pushing nationalist priorities. She mentions the lack of progress on the wall practically every day on Twitter and has for ages. So why not challenge him? She wouldn’t even need to mount a traditional campaign. Although her Fox appearances would dry up, I bet CNN and MSNBC would be happy to make mischief for him by giving her a platform when she wants one. She can campaign through her op-ed column and Twitter feed too. She’s actually quite Buchananesque in some ways. Jump in and give Trumpers a way to cast a protest vote, hoping that Trump will get the message and be less likely to compromise on matters like the wall. That’s the only sure way to know how many righties are loyal to the nationalist agenda versus how many are loyal to the man himself.

In the meantime, watching her and Rush goad Trump into a shutdown where he has no leverage is going to be amazing. It’s working, too! If you think today was disappointing, wait until he and Pelosi have a two-week staredown that ends with him inevitably blinking.

Migration Watch UK has warned that the Government’s plans for immigration after Brexit will lead to an influx to Britain “even more massive” than the record levels it is already experiencing.

Delayed for almost a year, the White Paper on immigration after Brexit has now been unveiled by Home Secretary Sajid Javid, who campaigned for a Remain vote as Business Secretary during the EU referendum.

The United Kingdom has never had particularly strong immigration controls and Tory manifesto promises to cut the net annual inflow “from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands” in 2010, 2015, and 2017 have never been achievable due to the country’s EU membership — given Brussels mandates unlimited and effectively unvetted intra-bloc migration under its Free Movement regime.

The Brexit vote held the prospect of finally making progress on this long-standing commitment — and indeed, the vote alone resulted in EU net immigration fall to 74,000, accompanied by a significant rise in wages and starting salaries for workers in industries where employers had been exploiting cheap foreign labour to the full, particularly hospitality.

Lord Green of @migrationwatch told BBC News: ‘There needs to be pressure from the immigration system on industry to make sure it is in their own financial interest to train British people’. But Government’s new proposals fall well short of this (and may make the situation worse) pic.twitter.com/HwRXlhRMm4

— Migration Watch UK (@MigrationWatch) December 19, 2018

But, despite its own the Government’s own Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) defying expectations to admit that mass migration has been of no real benefit to Britain and turned it in “lower wage, lower productivity kind of economy”, the Government appears to have acceded to bosses’ demands to maintain a continuous supply of cheap foreign labour by providing an uncapped number of visas for low-skilled migrants.

“These are shocking proposals which run completely against the current of public opinion and which are likely to result in even more massive levels of immigration,” commented Migration Watch UK chief Lord Green of Deddington in a statement received by Breitbart London.

“The chief winners from this White Paper will be business, as they exploit the bonanza of a huge new pool of labour from around the world while continuing to avoid their responsibility to the public to recruit and train up local talent,” he explained.

“The chief losers will be young people who are trying to find work or to get on the housing ladder. More widely, even current levels of immigration are already a real concern for those who are worried about our increasingly overcrowded country and who wish to preserve our way of life for future generations.”

Report: Britain’s Illegal Immigrant Population Growing by 70,000 Each Year https://t.co/z399sZbD66

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) September 20, 2018

The think tank also warned that the fact the low-skilled worker visas will be valid for 12 months could be a way of “fiddling the immigration figures”, as they only include migrants set to stay in the country for over a year.

They further note that the country would have no real capacity to monitor to remove migrants who overstayed, given its already lamentable record of deporting immigration offenders.

Follow Jack Montgomery on Twitter: @JackBMontgomery

Follow Breitbart London on Facebook: Breitbart London

Chick-fil-A is growing at such a rapid pace that it is expected to become the third largest fast food chain in the U.S., surpassing competitors like Subway.

Business has been booming for Chick-fil-A, as sales for the chicken sandwich chain soared by 15.5 percent in 2018 and traffic to its stores went up by 10 percent since 2017.

But the privately-held chicken sandwich franchise is making such a splash that it is catching up to publicly-traded competitors such as McDonalds and Wendy’s years ahead of schedule.

Kalinowski Equity Research told Marketwatch that Chick-fil-A’s popularity is growing faster than expected, as the chain was not expected to grow this quickly until 2020.

“We have long pointed out that Chick-fil-A is the restaurant competition with which McDonald’s U.S. should most concern itself – and by extension, investors should too,” according to a statement from Kalinowski Equity Research. “But this goes beyond McDonald’s.”

The chain’s projected sales for 2018 are expected to top $10 billion, even though the chicken sandwich joint is only open six days a week to keep company founder Truett Cathy’s wish to close the stores on Sundays to observe it as a holy day.

McDonalds took the stop spot for America’s largest fast-food chain in 2017, reporting $37.6 billion in sales. Starbucks took second place, reporting sales of $17.65 billion.

Although the chain has been rejected on some college campuses for its traditional Christian values, it is expected to expand in states like Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Ohio to compete with larger fast food chains.

The fast-food chain has also made the news this year for its good deeds, such as opening on a Sunday to feed first responders and stranded airport passengers.

If you were elected president after decades of politicians doing nothing about the millions of illegals pouring into our country every year, committing crimes, dealing drugs, driving drunk, molesting children and killing Americans like Kate Steinle, and your central campaign promise — repeated every day — was to build a wall, wouldn’t you have spent the entirety of your transition period working on getting it done?

Wouldn’t you have been building prototypes, developing relationships with key congressional allies and talking to military leaders about using the Seabees or the Army Corps of Engineers to build the wall? 

Wouldn’t you skip the inauguration and take the oath of office in San Diego so you could get started on supervising wall construction immediately after putting your hand on the Bible and being sworn in as the leader of the free world? 

You would if you meant it. 

Well, Donald Trump didn’t do that. 

OK, sure he could have taken the oath in D.C., gone to a few balls, then started the wall on day two of his presidency. But he didn’t do that either. 

Maybe I’m a literalist. A zealot. When people kept telling me to be patient — the wall is coming! — I nursed a private hope that I was wrong, and they were right. 

It is now crystal clear that one of two things is true: Either Trump never intended to build the wall and was scamming voters all along, or he has no idea how to get it done and zero interest in finding out. 

He sacrifices every opportunity to make the wall happen. 

For two years, Trump pretended to believe the president of the United States needs express authorization from Congress to defend the nation’s borders and blamed the Republican majority for not “funding” the wall. 

In a few weeks, he’ll start blaming the Democratic House. 

Last week — several whole days ago — Trump said over and over again that he would shut down the government if he didn’t get funding for the wall — the precise thing he claims he needs. “We need border security. The wall is a part of border security,” he said. “If we don’t have border security, we’ll shut down the government.”

Trump wore the shutdown over the wall as a badge of honor: “You want to know something? OK, you want to put that on me. I’ll take it. You know what I’ll say? Yes, if we don’t get what we want … I will shut down the government. Absolutely.” 

One week later, The Drudge Report: 

WALL FUNDING OFF TABLE 

In other words, Trump is doing exactly what I feared he would do in the worst conceivable way. He’s not building the wall, while making ridiculous promises right up until the second before he folds. 

The Washington Post loves to find the one crazy, trailer park lady who supports Trump because she’s had religious ecstasies about him, but most people who voted for him did so with a boatload of qualms. 

The basic factory setting on the perception of Trump is: gigantic douchebag. This is a man who manufactured fake Time magazine covers featuring himself with the headline, “Donald Trump: The ‘Apprentice’ is a television smash!” so that he could put framed copies of it on the walls of his clubs. 

His business is convincing people with lowbrow taste to give him their money. 

He’s a vulgar publicity hound who used to call reporters in a fake voice and pretend to be his own PR agent, “John Miller” or “John Barron,” so he could brag that actresses wanted to date him. 

On one “Apprentice” episode, the reward for the winning team was: to see Trump’s apartment. Not to eat there or spend the night. They got to see it. “As a little treat,” he said, “you’re gonna see the nicest apartment in New York City.” He added: “I show this apartment to very few people. Presidents, kings …” 

It’s not as if a majority of his voters weren’t clear-eyed about what kind of man he is. If anything, Trump’s vulgar narcissism made his vow to build a wall more believable. Respectable politicians had made similar promises over the years — and they always betrayed the voters. Maybe it took a sociopath to ignore elite opinion and keep his word. 

On the basis of his self-interest alone, he must know that if he doesn’t build the wall, he has zero chance of being re-elected and a 100 percent chance of being utterly humiliated. 

But when Trump is alone with Ivanka, they seem to agree that the wall has nothing to do with it. The people just love him for who he is! In a country of 320 million people, I’m sure there are some, but I have yet to meet a person who said, Yeah, I don’t really care about immigration or trade, I just love his personality! 

What else were we going to do? He was the only one talking sense. Unfortunately, that’s all he does: talk. He’s not interested in doing anything that would require the tiniest bit of effort. 

In the end, we’ll probably find out “wall” was Trump’s “safe word” with Stormy Daniels. It’s just something he blurts out whenever he’s in trouble. 

He’s in trouble now. As absurd as the Russia nonsense is, the details about Trump’s sleazy associates, the porn star, the Playboy playmate and his seedy business practices leave his supporters feeling queasy, even if he hasn’t committed any crimes. 

Instead of joining a fight that will make his most ardent supporters cringe no matter how it comes out, why not choose a battleground where he’s guaranteed a win? If Trump used the military to build the wall — actually build it, not keep telling us he’s going to build it — the Democrats will go mad. 

They’ll hold impeachment hearings, file a million lawsuits, produce weeping children reading from phony scripts written by immigrant rights groups — and Trump will win. The public will support Trump overwhelmingly, and the left will be forced to keep reminding voters why they hate Democrats. 

Instead, what he’s doing now absolutely guarantees that the next president will be a Democrat and, given today’s Democratic Party, that president will be Kamala Harris. 

COPYRIGHT 2018 ANN COULTER