Friday, October 13, 2017

From The Media; Commentary For Conservatives 9/13/17 Part#1

It's Official: Democrats Are The Extremists Today LINK

************************************

 LINK

Trumpist populism, though not without its blind spots, has a more incisive diagnosis of the defining political conflict of our age and of the central threats confronting the country than any of the other competing worldviews.

****************************************************************************

Trump and Iran nuclear deal: Smart chess play could motivate the mullahs  LINK

It costs the president nothing, does not wreck the agreement, does not reimpose sanctions, and can be reversed if Tehran proves it is complying.

**************************************************

Harvey Weinstein and Hollywood’s secular, liberal indulgences 

LINK

*************************************

Trump Made the Right Move on UNESCO

The agency is a den of anti-Semites.

********************************************************************************** 

The general schools doltish press corps

LINK

************************************

 Trump strikes a blow for health-care freedom

Free at last! That’s the message for millions who don’t get health coverage at work and, until now, faced two dismal options: going without insurance or paying Obama­Care’s soaring premiums. On Thursday, President Trump announced changes that will allow consumers to choose coverage options costing half of what ObamaCare’s cheapest bronze plans cost.

**************************************************** 

Is Trump the Heir to Reagan?

 LINK

 *************************************

 Hollywood Should Never Lecture America Again

LINK

*************************************

How the NFL Lost to Trump 
LINK 
***************************************

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Palin's America Stands Aghast At Dem/Hollywood America






The righteous indignation at the monstrous Harvey Weinstein, his enablers, those who knew but kept silent and the Democratic Party hypocrites who took his money and posed with him has rippled across the conservative media and middle America.

The outstanding commentator, with first hand experience of Hollywood Roger L.Simon has to my mind best and succinctly summed up the situation:

Hollywood’s politics have always been a self-serving charade, a liberal masquerade for a rapacious and lubricious lifestyle.  But now, thanks to the Weinstein scandal, we see it more clearly than ever. And it couldn't be more repellent. (I had always thought Bill Clinton would have made the greatest studio executive of all time. Now I'm convinced of it.)...

They have abandoned the culture -- and our children -- to the creepiest people imaginable.  What is going on in Hollywood is far from being just about Harvey. It’s approaching a pandemic"

The moral rot in American society started with President Clinton, the exposure of what the liberal establishment really thought of the non-coastal elite was, inadvertently exposed, and made plain with then candidate Obama's "bitter clingers" and Michelle Obama's "I have never been proud of my country" remarks.

Certainly President Nixon was ethically bankrupt over Watergate and President G.W. Bush was wrong on Iraq but neither man was an elitist nor personally morally corrupt.

In the 2016 election the voters, outside the Democrat's coastal redoubts, clearly signaled they had had enough and wanted wholesale change, especially from the Beltway crowd that Hillary and her cohorts represented. 

What has come to light in respect of just how morally bankrupt, corrupt, cynical and disgusting that cohort is has, forever, removed whatever amount of scales there were to drop from the public's eyes.

Sarah Palin saw all this in 2008 and for her honesty, unbending Christian values and worst of all being pro-life was vilified, satirized and hated on with a vehemence never seen before in American political life. 

 Those at the very forefront of this endless attack were the same Hollywood denizens and their media supporters who have now been exposed as morally bankrupt or utter cowards in reaping the benefits from  their obsequiousness and speaking up when it was safe years later.

The Democratic Party, despite their  (some not all) returning Weinstein's tainted money is completely tied their Hollywood supporters in the public's mind. 

It is unimaginable that the very people who turned against that party in 2016 would be attracted back to it after it has been exposed as simply a vehicle for immoral leftism.

In the end Palin and Palin's America won, not through Palin herself being elected of course but via "Palinism in the presidency i.e. her chosen candidate, with the wherewithal to finance the campaign, won on her values. 

The roots of Donald Trump's historic presidential victory go back eight years to the 2008 presidential contest and the V.P. candidacy of Sarah Palin.  Palin, or more properly Palinism, had many of the same characteristics as the Trump ascendancy: a robust patriotic populism driven by intense love of country and rejection of big-government internationalism embodied by Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Certainly President Trump is not "Palin" in respect of his life story but he has become the vehicle for traditional values and is, as much as the GOP will let him, keeping his policy promises and, most certainly keeping his promises as regards the Supreme Court and lower level judiciary appointments.

For all their wealth and power and attached Hollywood glamor the Democratic party is at its lowest ebb office wise in 100 years. The bringing into the full light of day its disdain for the common man and the corrupt bargain with the decedents of Hollywood must be a disgusting sight to all Americans who hold the traditional view of American society dear.



Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Weinstein Affair Shows "Bernie Bros." Were Right And Were Robbed, As Were The Voters, Of Genuine Choice.




No I'm not a Sanders supporter although I clearly recognize there were points of confluence between the Sanders agenda and what Trump supporters responded to.

Numerous commentators viewed various aspects of both campaigns in which they saw a commonality, to take just one of many, here are some (minus the snark) from The Atlantic's Molly Ball's list;

  • Both oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.
  • Both support maintaining or expanding current levels of Social Security benefits.
  • Both support some upper-income tax hikes.
  • Both lament the pernicious role of money in politics .
  • Both opposed the Iraq war (Stan herself notes that Trump “would have left Saddam Hussein in power”) and believe the money spent on it could have been put to better use domestically.
  • Both have been known to worry that increased immigration could depress working-class wages.

One could find fault with the list and add more from other sources but in my opinion there is enough, even from Ball's list, to show policy and values which Sanders and Trump supporters would appreciate-I certainly do.

But beyond policy the undeniable meeting of minds for both groups was the deeply held understanding that the status quo, as represented by the Obama administration, the Clinton's and the Beltway elite (including especially the RNC) needed to be swept away. The polls of voters on election night showed that "change" was among the highest factors in how they cast their ballots.

Again. I am not a Sanders supporter but I recognize and honor their honest and deeply held commitment to a values system that puts the economic advancement of lower income groups as a high priority. In other words Sanders supporters are driven by a moral, social justice imperative. 

That in my view their economic prescriptions would end up as having the opposite effect from their desired end, and their often vituperative, strident and ad hominem attacks on opponents is not the point. Rather the point is that, as opposed to Hillary, they stood for something and held to their beliefs with a passion.

We know now that the DNC under Wasserman-Schultz did everything possible to protect the establishment's anointed.

 Sanders supporters could I am sure provide a massive list of all the ways Sanders campaign was thwarted, but the DNC scheduling as few debates as possible and, deliberately, at the worst possible times for mass viewing, is just one of the blatant examples of interference with the democratic process.

In the end the most reprehensible actions by the establishment was to ensure Hillary was the nominee at all costs. That she turned out to be a flawed candidate, with grossly heavy baggage, a terrible campaigner who threw away the 'blue wall' by not even showing up in Wisconsin and too late in Michigan and Pennsylvania, would have dismayed Sanders supporters.

But it is now, in the light of Hillary's post election blame game (including a snit about Bernie) and
her connection to the monstrous Harvey Weinstein that the full extent of what the RNC did to the Sanders supporters is fully exposed.

It is clear to all objective viewers that the RNC/GOP establishment tried to foist a candidate with masses of policy but no policy "heart" nothing beyond wonkiness, to touch the desires of ordinary folks, and whose lack of moral values made her take five days to condemn her friend and financial backer Weinstein (without advising she would return his donations).

In retrospect a genuine choice, genuine for America's needs not the Clinton's or the RNC's, would have been a battle of ideas for change between Trump and Sanders. That this was denied by reprehensible means is a tragedy and an insult to Sanders supporters and their genuinely held values.
What a Bill and Hillary Clinton administration, with all their Hollywood hangers on, dubious finances and media enablers would have done to America is beyond imagining. 

What happens next for the Democratic Party is vital as if the establishment once again puts their status quo choice as the nominee the prospect of Sanders, or his successor, staying with the Dem's is moot. One thing is certain is that the Democratic Party would not deserve to have such members and surely the limits of their patience would be sorely tested.



Monday, October 9, 2017

Democrat's May Be Forced To Run A "Culture Wars" Midterms Against Their Will


It is a historical political truism that nearly always the sitting president's party gets defeated in the Congressional midterms.
 Sometimes they get hammered as per the Dem's under President Obama which saw the second biggest losses in modern times, a massive 69 total senate and house seats, on relatively rare occasions the losses are down to a net one as under JFK in 1962. Only in extraordinary circumstances has there been an actual gain in both the senate and house, with FDR at the height of the depression and G.W. Bush post 9/11.

That being said the 2018 midterms are more challenging than usual for an opposition party ;

"To start, Democrats must confront what looks like a punishing Senate map in 2018. The party that controls the White House tends to lose congressional seats in midterm elections, but it seems unlikely that Democrats will regain control of the Senate two years from now, much less the House of Representatives. 

Republicans significantly outnumber Democrats in the House, and only need to protect eight Senate seats in 2018 while Democrats must defend twenty-five seats.
Adding to the challenge, Democrats have senators up for reelection in states Donald Trump won by double digit margins such as North Dakota, West Virginia, Montana, Indiana and Missouri.

 Those aren’t the only perilous races: Democratic incumbents also need to defend Senate seats in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Florida, states that voted for Obama in two presidential elections before switching to vote for Trump. “There’s no question the map will be extremely difficult for Democrats"

But, as the 1938 loss of 77 and the 69 loss in 2010 shows when the political tide goes out after an earthquake the governing party is left squelching in mudflats until the tide eventually turns as it always does.


It is fair to say that a fair number of midterm defeats have not be anywhere near cataclysmic, and if President Trump is unpopular in November 2018 and, perhaps more importantly the McConnell/Ryan team have put no runs on the board the Dem's have a decent chance of having a "throw the bums out" substantial gains result in at least one chamber if not both. 
This is regardless of whether or not Trump is popular as, as is always the case with the midterms, it is a matter of getting the base out. Conservatives, the GOP's midterm mainstays, may decide to stay at home in the knowledge that Trump personally would not be at risk.

There is one overriding circumstance which could so motivate the base that they turn out in substantial numbers whether or not the GOP has done their job as the base would wish and/or Trump is perceived as having failed the base, and that is if the Dem's are forced to run a "culture wars" campaign.

The last time they did this overtly, or more to the point were perceived to have done so, was in G.W. Bush's 2004 reelection campaign. 
The Bush/Rove team so characterized John Kerry as an effete, elite, unpatriotic east coast liberal and potential bringer of same-sex marriage (the call in opposition was "I'm for Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve") that the base was motivated, especially crucially in Ohio to turn out. It is astounding to see Kerry actually being touted as the Dem's 2020 presidential candidate given that history.

Given the post 2016 election realization by the Democratic Party that their neglect of a message to the Midwest/rust blue collar voters, and the perceived elitism and disdain by the liberal establishment of "flyover country's" mores, it would seem obvious that the last thing the Dem's would wish to do would be to have to campaign in 2018 on cultural matters instead of an anti-Trump + positive policies messaging.

However circumstances may force their hand no mater how unwillingly.

The spectacle of, mostly Black, sportsmen "taking the knee" and refusing to go to the White House for ceremonial purposes hits the Trump base in its most sore spot, and in one of its major and hallowed congregating places the football stadium where a perceived disdain for the flag and national anthem is especially bad optics.

While the media and of course the leftist Twitterverse has been outraged at President Trump's attacks on the players and team owners involved the Democratic voices have been strangely muted.
 Apart from a few Black congressmen the Democrat's leadership has been basically silent. For them to attack Trump means they would at the same time be defending those perceived as being anti-flag and anthem and pro-BLM.

To take to the hustings with such a defense, especially in the senate seats where they are most vulnerable would be to court disaster. Any GOP candidate worth their salt would surely campaign for the flag and anthem and the visuals in campaign adverts would write themselves. But, can the Democrat's avoid supporting the Black athletes protests?

If they stay muted the message to Black voters would be clear. The party Black voters stayed at home from voting for in large numbers in 2016 would be seen as further deserting their needs when the social crunch came.
 That this could be disastrous in the midterms would be bad enough, but the implications for the Dem's in Michigan,Florida and Ohio in 2020, especially if the Trump administration has delivered on jobs, could be catastrophic in its long term implication for the Electoral College.

The 'demographics are destiny" concept, which failed so badly in 2016, and from which their appears to be no easy escape for a divided Democratic Party, may yet be a further salt to be rubbed in the open wounds of a misguided political strategy.

Friday, October 6, 2017

Trump's Challenging Week; Puerto Rico/Los Vegas/MSM;The Voters Verdict is A+

The challenges, sometimes desperate one e.g. North Korea, hurricanes, and terrible tragedies like Las Vegas keep coming at President Trump whose "on the job training" is such that few presidents bar Lincoln and Truman, have had to face.

Not only has he been hit with these major events but at the same time he has been attacked by a rabid media, a new study shows that 95% of reporting on him and his administration has been negative.

Seemingly the entire entertainment complex from 100% of the late night "comedians' and TV shows such as the relaunch of 'Will and Grace' have targeted Trump endlessly and mercilessly.

But through it all, including a Congressional body that will not stand together to pass his agenda the base has remained steadfast.

The opinion polls, now utterly discredited, continue to show Trump's approval rating in the mid to upper 30 percent range. 

Those polling firms which show the respondent figure show a grossly distorted Dem to GOP ratio so their conclusions are worthless and distorted. The daily tracking polls, which on average fared nearly perfectly in the 2016 election have been more balanced.

The week commencing October 2nd,the day of the Las Vegas tragedy and President Trump's visit to Puerto Rico (which was, again, the subject of ridiculous media distortion and histrionics by the Mayor of San Juan) showed the public's view of Trump in light of these events and the view was a psotive one.

Firstly Gallup (which won't release its respondent rate and has had the lowest Trump approval over time compared others) showed Trump approaching 40%, one of his highest levels of the year from a low of 36% on 9/27 and ascending for the week


 At Rasmussen the rise is more striking up 4 points from Monday to Friday. Thus despite the MSM's worst efforts the public saw, considered, and approved



Thursday, September 28, 2017

Astounding Effect "Take The Knee" Had On Trump's Approval Rating

With all the MSM coverage of President Trump's strong condemnation of athletes "taking the knee" during the national anthem his "Get those SOB's off the field" and prominent, mostly Black athletes also attacking him, it might well be expected there would be a massive hit to his approval ratings.

Further, sports fans might be enraged by the seemingly overt politicization and disruption to their favorite winter game and this would also hit Trump's approval.

So what actually happened to Trump's statistics over the height of the controversy, did he experience a sharp and humiliating drop in approval from already historically low levels? 

Well, actually nothing happened and, if anything, Trump's approval rating ticked up a bit.


 The polls, Reuters and Quinnipiac which include part of Sunday and Monday the 25-26th the height of the controversy Trump is an aggregate 37%. These two polls however always give Trump a much lower number than do the majority of others.

The four polls which have larger influence of directly involved events;Economist/Fox/Gallup/Rasmussen
have an aggregate of 40.2%.They include Gallup which also gives a far lower rating than others and which ticked down a point from its previous poll but Rasmussen ticked up one.

What all this appears to show is that Trump's base is with him "even if he shot a man on 5th Avenue" the Black vote will go massively to the Democratic party with perhaps a small bit of growth to the GOP as in 2016 as economic conditions for Blacks improve.

And it shows the MSM for all its antipathy and dramatic images of mass kneeling and endless talking head shrieking, has just about zero effect on public opinion to Trump, and, to their chagrin, perhaps on anything else they get so exercised about.



New Fox Poll: "In general, do you think kneeling during the national anthem is an appropriate (41%) or inappropriate (55%) form of protest?








 

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Roseanne To Return; Will Hollywood Wake Up To Trump's America Too?




As everyone knows, and of course the Emmy's confirmed, Hollywood is a bastion of leftism, to the point where conservative actors,(James Woods "I may never work again" an exception) especially Christians are afraid to speak out against the monolith of 'progressivism" (i.e. being an outspoken Democratic Party member) that even the only visible Republican club the "secretive" 'The Friends Of Abe' disbanded.

The roster of actors/musicians/producers/directors who supported Hillary Clinton is legion but that has been considered to be one of the (seemingly endless) reasons why she lost. In a time of massive rejection of the Establishment, the liberal elite, and of being ridiculed and spoken down to by people outside of the major urban centers and centers of entertainment, the sight of actors and musicians being on a stage with Clinton simply reinforced this sense of being condescended to.

Clinton's campaign ending rally in Philadelphia with a host of rock stars showed just how ineffectual these superstars are in persuading not only those predisposed to support the left, i.e. young people who generally don't bother to vote, but how effective such a spectacle was in galvanizing rural voters to overwhelmingly reject Clinton.

One thing is certain after such a dismal failure of "star power" there never will be again such a useless reliance on an effort that brings so little reward and is in fact a detriment.

However Hollywood loves one thing more than it's leftism and that is of course money. During the end of the G.W. Bush years, and all throughout the Obama administration the Hollywood left has had free reign to churn out endless movies and television drama and sitcoms extolling their social views.

Gay sitcoms, lesbian drama's "modern family" mixed parentage sitcoms and all aspects of non-traditional marriage and family life have been the mainstay of the media. So too have big city travails of single women battling sexism, misogyny and all sorts of dastardly men been the norm. Depictions of working classand rural family life and struggles hardly merited a look-in.

With the election of Donald Trump and the complete dominance of conservatives in Congress and majority of state legislatures, if the Hollywood elite ever recover from their shock even the most blinkered of them (
"Progressive fundamentalism: how Hollywood and the media fortify the bubbles we all live in") could now see the entire zeitgeist, the mores of the nation, have swung dramatically against the one sided and distorted image of American society that they have relentlessly pushed onto the television and movie screens for over a decade.

To make money from this awakening, unless they stupidly persist in their rejected direction, Hollywood could climb down from their elitist heights and create entertainment that reflects the society that resoundingly rejected them in the election. It's not as if they would have to reinvent the wheel either.

There is a wealth of entertainment history that depicted wholesome American life that would be simple to recreate in a modern setting (including Black and Hispanic themes). My Three Sons, The Donna Reed Show, Leave It To Beaver, Father Knows Best (or Mother Knows best for today's world) in the family setting.



The passing of Florence Henderson and the outpouring of affection for her memory proves the attractions still of the lighthearted the "Brady Bunch" happy family concept.



A new version of Andy Griffith Show set in rural "Mayberry" could make a comeback in a modern setting as a nod to the 2016 voters who made their presence and distaste apparent.




And what could be a more obvious tip of the hat to working class America than a revival of "Roseanne" whose leading actor, once robust feminist, tellingly has become a staunch opponent of Hillary Clinton.

Hollywood has a choice, continue with their grossly out of touch elitism or bring back more of the likes of the whip smart Roseanne Barr and family values movies and help bring the nation together whilst making money at it. My guess is that's the direction they will head in as they may be incorrigibly leftist but they are not stupid with it as far as their wallets are concerned.



Warning Sign As Trump And Palin Campaign for Different Candidates In Alabama

(Picture at BREITBART)




  Given the current state of the Democratic Party, the substantial possibility of their nominating a "progressive" candidate and the historical odds favoring sitting presidents running for reelection the greatest danger to a Trump 2020 run could come from within the GOP.

From the commencement of the primary system in 1912, every time a sitting president or vice-president has faced a realistic primary challenge they have lost the subsequent presidential election or withdrew from running after facing near certain defeat in the primaries.



Prior to that the only sitting presidents not to be renominated at conventions were Franklin Pierce, considered among the worst presidents, “the only time in U.S. history that an elected president who was an active candidate for reelection was not nominated for a second term" and the non-elected presidents Andrew Johnson and Chester A. Arthur.

   This historical truth is exemplified by President Taft's disastrous reelection campaign when former President Teddy Roosevelt bolted the party after failing to get the nomination even though he won over 51% of the primary vote.

   President Truman withdrew after losing the New Hampshire primary to Estes Kefauver. President Lyndon Johnson dropped out of the race after narrowly winning the New Hampshire primary. President Carter faced a massive challenge from Senator Ted Kennedy which was not resolved until Kennedy's begrudging endorsement of Carter at the convention "one of the nastiest on record".

  President Ford faced a similar challenge from Governor Reagan which went down to the wire at the GOP convention. In 1992 President G.W. Bush's reelection bid (his 1988 primary run as VP for the presidential nomination  was never in doubt) had to fight off a serious challenge from the right via Pat Buchanan "the fact that Buchanan received more than two million votes nationwide, prognosticated disaster in the fall."

   Sitting Vice-president Hubert Humphrey after the worst nominating convention in American history and a bruising primary campaign  (using "favorite sons" as substitute for campaigning himself) went on to lose to Nixon in 1968. VP Al Gore who went on to lose the presidential race to G.W.Bush was challenged for the Democratic presidential nomination by Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey who only lost the New Hampshire primary by 3 points.

  Former vice-president's had a mixed record with Walter Mondale winning the 1984 nomination after a primary battle and losing the presidential election and Hubert Humphrey being defeated by George McGovern for the 1972 nomination.

At this point in President Trump's administration there is not the slightest breath of speculation that he might be challenged for the nomination in 2020, nor has any Republican of note given any overt sign that he or she might do so.

However, such was the case during the first year of Jimmy Carter's presidency when the breaking with tradition cardigan wearing president with the big toothy grin was hugely popular. President G.W.H Bush seemed unbeatable after the Gulf War. Both presidencies ended very badly.

Are there any straws in the wind which, even at this point, might lead to a similar ending for President Trump? Yes there are.



​Damon Linker at 'The Week' who, apart from considering himself 'smart" ("a lot of smart people got Trump wrong") has been apocalyptic regarding Trump ("poised to lose in biggest landslide in history") right from the start, now sees the entire GOP breaking up;


"If the members of Trump's base do finally turn on him, where are they going to go? Into the arms of pro-immigration Paul Ryan and whatever candidate the still-reigning GOP establishment puts up in 2020? Or will they instead stew through what remains of the Trump presidency (including the now much-more-likely Trump impeachment) while they await a more competent and ideologically coherent candidate to emerge from the fully energized Breitbart/Bannonite wing of the party?


I'd place my bets on the latter. Which doesn't mean that such a hard-right nationalist "workers party" candidate would automatically win the GOP nomination. But it does mean that the 2020 primaries would be a contest over which faction gets to call itself the Republican Party and which ends up forced into the third-party wilderness."


This is of course utter nonsense and is refuted by no less than the New York Times which ruined an otherwise instructive article by titling it "When Trump say jump his followers say how high?" The gist of the academic study is that politics is now completely tribal and policies do not count no matter the flip flops, all that matters is a person’s side "wins" against the other party.


However, politics policies core beliefs and flip flops do matter and have their breaking point as regards the internal opposition and this is where an internal fissure could lead to a 2020 challenge.

The outlines of such a fissure showed its first sign in, of all places, Alabama where the extraordinary sight of the GOP’s sitting president and past vice-presidential candidate will be canvassing for different senatorial candidates in the same week.
Former Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin is heading down to Alabama to help boost former state Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore (R) in his primary against appointed Sen. Luther Strange (R-AL), joining forces with a pro-Trump super-PAC to try to knock out Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) strongly preferred candidate.
Palin will join a bus tour run by Great America Alliance, a pro-Trump group that recently added former White House staffer Andy Surabian, who has close ties to recently ousted former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon. The planned rally will occur late next week, according to a strategist close to the organization.”
And from President Trump; “I will be in Huntsville, Alabama, on Saturday night to support Luther Strange for Senate,” Trump tweeted. “‘Big Luther’ is a great guy who gets things done!” 

  The mystery of Trump supporting a McConnell choice is a spectacle of much fascination whose machinations are too arcane to consider without minds being boggled. "The Art Of The Machiavelli" might be a Trump book in progress.


With Palin the certainty is core beliefs trump party and political appointment. Palin endorsed Trump well before anyone else and it is likely her support prior to the Iowa caucuses was instrumental in gaining Trump the credibility of a second place finish.


That she would campaign against Trump’s chosen candidate simply reinforces to her followers that principle counts above all else. Nobody else in the GOP could mount a primary challenge without some degree of self-seeking being attached to such an effort except “you don’t need a title to make a difference’ Palin.


 That Bannon, who touted Palin for president prior to the rise of Trump, is supporting her efforts in Alabama gives financial and media substance, allied to Palin’s personal mass following, to any future schism. So too is his attack on the same McConnell Trump is supporting "Bannon: Why Are McConnell And Ryan Letting Democrats Investigate Trump?"


If an internal breaking point comes, perhaps on “The Wall” (Hannity; "The wall better be part of Trump's deal"  
"Jenny Beth Martin, the co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, said activists were “very, very concerned" then President Trump, or perhaps more accurately the Priebus/Christie team who advised on cabinet appointments, may come to sorely regret not bringing Palin into the administration and not keeping Bannon in it.

See also;
"Trump's Move to the Left Ensures a Primary Opponent"