The Myth of the Establishment Elite

If there is anything that has been learned by the election results this year it is that the establishment elite does not know any more than anybody else.

Their position, their platform and their pomposity may make them believe that they have some special powers to divine truth, justice, or even what the American way should be. However, the truth is that they put their pants and pantsuits on just like you or me.

We heard from politicians from both parties, political pundits, so-called journalists, pollsters and celebrities for almost two years that it wasn't possible for Donald Trump to be elected President. You even heard it from me at the beginning of his quest. I praised the message but questioned the messenger and his methods. I saw the error of my ways as the Primary season ended. The results were hard to argue with.

This is an entertaining video retrospective of some of those who laughed at the prospects of a Trump presidency. Who is laughing now? It is worth the three minutes...for a laugh...or two...or three.

Click here if you cannot open the video in your browser.

If you did not know it before, you should know it now. The Establishment Elite is a myth.

Two other examples of why it is a myth are found in two gentlemen who I follow on Twitter. Neither would be considered to be part of any definition of the Establishment Elite. However, both have proven just how big the myth of the establishment elite is These guys have proven wiser and more resourceful than anyone that I can think of. And both of them did it without even leaving their home.

@phillyrich1 (Rich Weinstein)

Most people in the United States had never heard of Professor Jonathan Gruber, the self-professed architect of Obamacare, until Rich Weinstein became upset when he lost the health plan he liked and found that the replacement plan cost twice as much. Weinstein was a "nobody" investment advisor living in Philadelphia who decided to do his own research on the "architects" of the law.

He found a treasure trove of material on statements that Gruber made in conferences about how some aspects of the law were purposely manipulated and cited "the stupidity of the American voter" as a key element in getting the law passed.

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure the CBO did not score the mandate as taxes,” said Gruber. “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. Call it the stupidity of the America voter, or whatever.”

Was this story broken by anybody from the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN or the major networks---the so-called media elite? No. It was Rich Weinstein who described himself this way to Bloomberg Politics back in 2014.

“I’m an investment adviser,” Weinstein tells me from his home near Philadelphia. “I’m a nobody. I’m the guy who lives in his mom’s basement wearing a tinfoil hat.” (He's joking about the mom and the tinfoil.)

Make no mistake, The Affordable Care Act is a terrible piece of legislation. It has failed and fallen due to its own inadequacies. However, were it not for Rich Weinstein we would not have the full measure of the back room contortions, concealments and conniving that led to its passage.

Thank you, Rich.

The myth of the establishment elite.

@mitchellvii (Bill Mitchell)

The arc of Bill Mitchell's story is not much different.  Mitchell has his own executive recruiting firm that he runs out of his home in Charlotte, NC.

Mitchell decided very early that he was on the Trump Train and he never looked back. I became aware of Bill early in the primary season as I came across his optimistic and unrelenting tweets about the power of the Trump candidacy. I was skeptical at first but I came to see that Mitchell was not often wrong. This was despite taking increasing incoming barrages from political pollsters and pundits that trolled him continually that he did not know what he was talking about.

All the while, Mitchell never wavered and never waffled. Witness this tweet from September.

Charley Warzel of BuzzFeed.com did a profile of Mitchell three weeks before election day that catalogues what many of the naysayers were saying about him. Frank Luntz was one of those that seemed to take particular pleasure in telling Bill he did not know anything about statistics or polling.

Of course, that is that same Frank Luntz who also tweeted this out early on Election Night.

To his credit, Luntz ate a little humble pie the day after the election. However, I don't believe that Michael Moore had exactly figured this out the same way that Bill Mitchell did.

Donald Trump may have won without Bill Mitchell's tweetstorm of support. However, he was an indispensable  and consistent beacon of hope to those Trump supporters who were deluged with biased reporting and unbalanced polls throughout the campaign.

Thank you, Bill.

The myth of the establishment elite.

God bless people like Rich Weinstein and Bill Mitchell.

They make me proud to be an American.

Seismic Shifts

This is an interesting chart in USA Today that I came across that shows the net change in vote margin for President across the United States between 2012 and 2016. The darker the red, the bigger the shift to Trump from Obama. The darker the blue, the more votes moved from Romney to Clinton.

This piqued my curiosity to compare the actual changes in vote margins in various states to better understand what is happening on the ground in a number or states. What type of seismic shifts were going that the headlines might have missed?

In this election we heard a lot about the big battleground states such as Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Iowa that paved the way for the Trump victory. However, bigger shifts were in play in other states that we did not hear much about. What happened there may have ramifications in the future even though it may not have meant much in the electoral college vote in 2016.

First, let's look at the key states that swung to Trump in 2016 from Obama in 2012 and how the vote margin shifted. All vote data is from www.uselectionsatlas.org.

You can see from the chart that even though Florida and North Carolina rightfully received a lot of attention on election night for shifting to Trump, the bigger voter swings were in the Midwest.

However, removed from the headlines of that night were other states that saw meaningful voter margin shifts to Trump. These shifts did not matter in the electoral college math this year but they may become meaningful in the future.

Every one of these states, except South Dakota and New York, has a Democrat senator (or an independent that caucuses with the Democrats) up for re-election in 2018. Heidi Heitkamp from North Dakota, Joe Manchin from West Virginia, Claire McCaskill from Missouri and Joe Donnelly from Indiana would appear to be particularly vulnerable as all these states were won by Trump by no less than 19 points. In fact, it would not surprise me if Joe Manchin switches to the Republican Party in the near future because there does not appear to be any future for a Democrat in West Virginia right now.

There also were states where voter swings away from the GOP occurred. These largely appear to be driven by changes in Hispanic demographics. The outlier here was Utah who never liked Trump like they loved Romney, but still delivered the state to the GOP by a 19 point margin.

Texas, California and Arizona show the Hispanic effect. Georgia, Virginia and Washington also saw shifts to Clinton compared to Obama but all of these shifts to the Democrats were much more modest swings than went the other way.

On the subject of the Hispanic vote, I also found this chart in USA Today interesting showing fewer Hispanics supported Hillary than Obama. The converse of that is that Trump got more support from Hispanics than either McCain or Romney. Notice that USA Today did not title this chart, "More Hispanics supported Trump". Media bias can be very subtle in furthering an agenda.

Thus, despite all of the noise that Trump's position on immigration was going to mean disaster for the GOP, the fact was that his support was not much different than it has been for Republican candidates for the last 25 years.

It seems that there are a lot of legal Hispanic immigrants who value the rule of law and the security of their adopted nation just as much as anyone else. Why should that be a surprise to anyone?

How Did Trump Win?

How did Trump win?

That is the question that seems to be on the mind of almost every pundit, politician and pollster right now. They almost all got it wrong.

Readers of BeeLine know that I regularly predicted that Trump had a good chance of winning the Presidency.

I wrote in May that I believed that Trump had a 50/50 chance of defeating Hillary. This was when almost everyone (including most elected Republicans) were saying he would have no chance. In fact, they were saying he would destroy the party and all its down ticket races.

I also warned that I thought that this race was particularly dangerous for pollsters to predict for any number of reasons.

How many voters will decide to just sit it out rather than make a choice?

Will the election be decided more by votes for or votes against a candidate?

Will the 18-29 age group turnout to vote and who will they support?

In June, I framed the electorate as wanting to revolt against a rigged system (little did I know how right I was on that) with the major question being whether voters would view the agent of change (Trump) as too risky to do it.

The voters seem willing to revolt. The primaries point to it. However, voters are only willing to risk so much. If he wants to win, Donald Trump needs to be seen as reasonable and rational while also being seen as revolutionary. It will not be an easy task.

If he can do it, he will win.

In August, Trump's poll numbers were sinking as he veered off message and seemed to have a tempest swirling around him everyday. Every pundit and many politicians in his own party were distancing themselves from him but I doubled down on Donald Trump's chances.

The current environment is providing Donald Trump something akin to a customer walking up to one of the poker tables in his casinos and drawing an inside straight.

The world is a mess. A vast majority of people in our country say we are heading in the wrong direction. People are tired of the status quo and the Democrats are running the Queen of the Status Quo.

It doesn't get much better than that for Donald Trump.

In fact, I dare say that the only one that can beat Donald Trump...is Donald Trump.

How did Trump win?

A big reason is obvious. He started listening to me! Actually, more likely, he took the advice of his campaign manager Kellyanne Conway and his children and stayed on message and tamed the tempest around him in the last several weeks of the campaign. In doing so, he became a reasonable choice for the many voters who were looking for change.

Another big reason is that the voters who turned out at the polls favored Trump. I had made a big point of this as being critical for Trump if he was going to win. That is why I wrote this two weeks before election day.

I don't know who is going to win this election. I am not sure the pollsters do at this point either.

What I do know is that it will be determined by how many vote (turnout), who those voters are (young, old, black, white) and events that still may play out and play on the minds of voters (volatility) between now and election day.

Let's look at the exit poll data and examine some of the more interesting insights on the makeup of the voters who made Trump the President-elect of the United States.

62% of voters believed that things in the country are seriously off on the wrong track. By comparison, only 52% believed that in 2012. Trump beat Clinton 69%-25% with that group of people. A big reason he won was that he convinced voters he was a reasonable agent of change.

You also see that in the exit poll data as 39% of voters cited "can bring needed change" as the most important candidate quality they were looking for. Trump won that group 83%-14%!

Trump showed he was a change agent from the beginning of the primaries. His challenge in the general election was to show voters that he was not a risky bet in the process. 60% of voters had made up their minds before September on who they would vote for and Hillary won those voters 52%-45%.

For Trump to win he had to convince the remaining 40% that he was a reasonable choice to effect change and that is exactly what he did in the end.

In fact, of those voters who made up their minds after Labor Day, Trump won every cohort.

Notice that Trump was particularly strong in October (the month of the debates) and in the last week (after Comey reopened the FBI investigation) in closing the sale with voters but Trump still won those who made their decision in the last few days after Comey reversed himself again. In 2012, Obama also won all of the groups who decided in October or later. In addition, 26% did not finally decide on their candidate until October or later this year. Only 20% made up their minds that late in 2012. 

It is also interesting that in an election where both candidates had high unfavorables, that Trump dominated with those voters that had an unfavorable opinion of both candidates.

18% of voters stated that they did not have a favorable opinion of either candidate. Trump carried those voters 49%-29%.

In the end, what really did in Hillary Clinton was her lack of honesty and trustworthiness. This was an issue that has dogged her for years and that is a big reason her private email was such a problem in this campaign. That comes through clearly in the exit polling.

Asked whether her use of private email bothered them while she was Secretary of State, almost 2/3 of voters said it bothered them a lot or some and she lost this group 70%-24%. 

Looking at this data, it is clear that the Democrat establishment made a huge error in rallying around Hillary and "rigging" the primary process for her. It ultimately cost their party the White House and also did damage to Democrats in down ticket races.

Finally, let's look at the key turnout data. I stated consistently during the campaign that Hillary would need to get big turnouts of African-American and young voters to win. She would also need to garner numbers similar to what Obama did from these groups in 2012.

The overall mix of voters was 70% white, 12% black, 11% latino, 4% Asian and 3% other. This compares to 72% white, 13% black, 10% latino, 3% Asian and 2% other in 2012. The net result was that both white and black percentages were down while Hispanics and other ethic groups were bigger groups within the total electorate.

All in, the African-American vote was down by over 1 million voters from 2012. As I predicted, Clinton was not able to energize these voters as Barack Obama did. At the same time, Trump got 8% of the black vote---a third more than what Romney got.

The age demographic of the voters did not hurt Hillary as much. Young voters showed up. 19% of voters were ages 18-29 in both 2016 and 2012. However, they did not support Clinton like they supported Obama. Obama took 67% of this group in 2008 and 60% in 2012. Hillary only got 55% of their vote this year. That represented another 1 million votes of more that Hillary lost compared to Obama in 2012.

At the same time, voters 50 and older actually increased from 44% to 45% of the electorate and Trump won similar winning margins with this group as Romney did (6-7 points).

Another interesting comparison in the data is the fact that Trump beat Clinton by 21 points with white voters overall. Romney beat Obama by 20 points. Is it racist that white voters actually preferred Obama to Clinton?

Perhaps it was sexism at work instead? However, white women overall supported Trump 53%-43% despite his alleged issues with women.

The only demographic that Trump failed to carry among white voters were female college graduates He lost those women by 6 points. However, white women without college degrees supported Trump by an incredible 62%-34%. He did even better with white men with similar education attainment----72%-23%!

These working-class men and women, who historically were considered the backbone of the Democratic party, were a major reason that Donald Trump won. Many had abandoned the Democrats beginning in the 1980's. Trump took it to another level. Trump won high school graduates and those with some college by around 10 points. Obama won the same group in 2012 by 2 points. Bear in mind, those without a college degree represents half of the voters in the country.

One example is right here in my home state of Ohio. Montgomery County in which Dayton is the major city and a home to hundreds of thousands of working class voters. Trump beat Clinton 48%-47%. Obama beat Romney 51%-47% and McCain 52%-46%. Repeat that in hundreds of counties across the country and you get the final result for Trump with working class voters.

I also found this exit poll question interesting in that it undoubtedly shows that Donald Trump picked up a fair number of Bernie Sanders and other disaffected liberals who did not want to vote for Hillary Clinton. They are represented by the 17% of the electorate that believes that the next President should be more liberal than Barack Obama. However, 23% of these liberals voted for Donald Trump! Let's put that in context. That is around 5 million votes!

Why were the pollsters wrong? Clearly there was more than one factor but the biggest reason seems to be their assumption about the makeup of those voting. Most pollsters kept overweighting their samples assuming that self-identified Democrats would make up voters by margins of from +6 to +8. In these pages I consistently argued that this did seem realistic considering this election did not feel like the D+6 or D+7 makeups of the 2012 and 2008 races with Obama on the ticket.

The final result---D+4.

Which polls were the closest to getting it right? The LA Times and IBD polls that I kept referencing in my blog posts.

Not everyone got it wrong.

I will cite my favorite Mark Twain quote once again for good measure.

“What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.”

It is worthwhile advice for every pundit, politician and pollster to remember. And protestor.

Protestors in my era who were against the Vietnam War chanted "Give Peace A Chance."

Perhaps they should "Give Trump A Chance."

Could it be that what they think they know for sure just ain't so?

Shock and Awe

Donald Trump has shocked the political and media establishment and has left liberal Democrats in utter shock and disbelief.

I know where they are coming from. I was in a similar place four years ago.

This tweet from Michele sums up a lot of what some of those on the left are feeling today.  I must say it is not dissimilar to how I felt exactly four years ago.

I felt similarly about getting out of bed every morning, going to work, paying my taxes, obeying the laws, respecting my country and being a man of Christian faith when half the country did not seem to care or respect my rights, our laws, our constitution or my contributions to my country and the public welfare.

Did the left care about me? Not in the slightest. They did not give me a second thought. I will not be that way. I understand and empathize with what they are going through. I hope that this experience will give them a little more perspective and respect for my views.

I am not a racist because I do not like Barack Obama's policies.

I am not sexist because I think Hillary Clinton was corrupt.

I am not xenophobic because I believe that a nation must have borders and its leaders should obey and enforce the rule of law.

I am not homophobic because I believe in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman or that men and women should use the proper rest room.

I am not Islamaphobic because I believe that we should have a very careful and stringent vetting test on any immigration from known terrorist countries which might undermine our national security.

I am not an obstructionist because I believe that the Constitution means something. If you don't like something, pass a law or amend the Constitution, don't use executive orders and the judicial system to subvert the rule of law.

If we learned anything last night it is that the people of the United States have the ultimate sovereign power on what kind of country they want to have. Every member of the House of Representatives must stand for re-election every two years. The President stands for election every four years and can serve no more than two terms. Terms for each Senator are only six years. The people have the power to literally turn the country on its head if they want.

We have seen the effects of that over the last eight years. The people have turned it on its head.

When Barack Obama passed Obamacare in his first term he had a 60-40 majority in the Senate and 258-177 majority in the House. Donald Trump will take office with what looks to be a 52-48 GOP majority in the Senate and somewhere close to a 240-195 majority in the House.

This is the legacy of Barack Obama. He has taken overwhelming majorities in the Senate and House and provided the Republicans meaningful majorities in both houses of Congress and the Presidency for the first time since 1928!  This did not happen because voters were happy with the policies of Barack Obama.

It also did not happen because Republicans or others who voted these people into office are racists as some of the liberals on the left want you to believe.

For example, in South Carolina last night, Donald Trump won South Carolina with a 14.1% voting margin. Tim Scott, the African-American Senator from South Carolina won his race with a 23.5% victory margin. Where is the racism when you look at the numbers? The black candidate outpolled the white guy in a deep Southern state.

So much for the shock.

What about the awe?

Awe is the only word I can use to describe what Donald Trump has accomplished.

He took on the Republican establishment when he first got into the primaries. He then took on the Democrats. Finally, he withstood the media elite who conspired against him and he ultimately completely confounded them.

He had very few of any consequence on his side. In the end, the only thing he had on his side were the people, And in America, that is all that you need.

It is the most amazing accomplishment that I have seen in six decades of closely watching politics.

And it was not luck that propelled Trump to victory.

As Paul Ryan said today, "Donald Trump heard a voice out in this country that no one else heard. He connected with—he connected in ways with people no one else did. He turned politics on its head.”

Trump also did it through old-fashioned hard work. I don't believe I have ever seen a national candidate work harder on the campaign trail. His schedule down the stretch was herculean. If nothing else he showed he has the energy and enthusiasm to work for the American people.

In the process he has reshaped the Republican party. Make no mistake, it is his party now. It also positions the Republicans to become the party that has the potential "to end the long partisan tug-of-war, ending the era of split government that had lasted through four decades" and be the majority party for a generation according to the predictions of Howe and Strauss in "The Fourth Turning."

I don't know if the Republicans can do it. However, I do know that Obama and the Democrats were positioned to do it with their majorities eight years ago and squandered the opportunity.

If Trump ends up doing that, I will truly be in awe.

The Fourth Turning Has Brought Us Trump

The Presidential election has produced one of the most historic and memorable results in my lifetime.

First and foremost, it is a reminder that in America the people have ultimate sovereign power. Donald Trump ran against the Democrats, the Republican establishment and the entire media elite and still prevailed. Americans often forget how much power they wield in our system. These results prove it.

The hour is late so further analysis will have to wait for another day. However, it appears Trump was able to win because Hillary Clinton was not able to generate the turnout she needed among minority, young and working class Democrat voters and Trump was able to pull the GOP base together while attracting disaffected working class voters.

Trump also effectively made the choice for voters as between CHANGE (Trump) or CORRUPTION (Clinton). Change is inherently risky. And it is even riskier when the candidate is Donald Trump. However, voting for Clinton was also risky by staying with the status quo (a 3rd Obama term) together with the cloud of corruption hanging over her head.

Finally, I will remind you that I wrote "Has The Fourth Turning Brought Us Trump?" last May in which I stated that Donald  Trump had appeared to put the prescription together that could possibly bridge the divide between Republicans and Democrats.

This might be a good time to re-read that post and consider where this all might be leading us.

Has The Fourth Turning Brought Us Trump?
(originally published May 10, 2016)

I have referenced the book "The Fourth Turning" by Neil Howe and William Strauss several times over the years in BeeLine

The Fourth Turning refers to the cycles of history. There is a pattern to history. There are four turns much as there are four seasons.  A new era -or turn- occurs about every two decades or so.

At the start of each turning, people change how they feel about themselves, the culture, the nation, and the future. Turnings come in cycles of four.  Each full cycle spans the length of a long human life, roughly 80 years.

There is a Spring which is a High where institutions are strengthening and individualism is weakening and a new civic order is implanting. This was the period beginning right after WW II to the late 1960's

There is a Summer which is the Awakening.  This is an era of spiritual upheaval when the new civic order comes under attack from a new values regime. This period began in the late 1960's with the flower children and Vietnam War protests and lasted until the late 1980's.

There is a Fall which is the Unraveling.  This is a period of strengthening individualism and weakening institutions.  The old civic order decays and the new values regime firmly implants.  This began in the late 1980's and the authors predicted that it would run for about 20 years.

The Fourth Turning is the Crisis which is the Winter.  It is a decisive era of secular upheaval according to Strauss and Howe. In 1997 (when they wrote the book), they predicted that "sometime around the year 2005, perhaps a few years before or after, America will enter the Fourth Turning."

The last Fourth Turning began in 1929 with the stock market crash. It ran until 1946 encompassing both the Great Depression and WWII. Previous Fourth Turnings culminated in the American Revolution and the Civil War. We are talking about events that literally put the entire society at risk.

The authors of The Fourth Turning originally projected 2005 as the target date for the turn stating that it could be several years before or after that date. 9/11 and Katrina could be the turning point but most likely the 2008 financial meltdown marked the catalyst that thrust us into The Fourth Turning. We will not know for sure until we see it all play out. The point of maximum crisis is usually about 3/4 of the way through the FourthTurning. If they are right, we will likely experience it within the next 10 years.

One of the important points that Howe and Strauss make in The Fourth Turning is that history does not necessarily repeat, but it rhymes. Why is that? Because with each succeeding generation the learnings of the past are forgotten or never learned. As a result, there is a tendency to ignore the past lessons of history as previous generations were not there and did not "live it". The same mistakes are made again and again over time.

When I read this book in 1998 it seemed an audacious prediction that we would be entering a period of Crisis. America was riding high. The stock market was booming.  The federal budget was in surplus. The defense budget was being trimmed every year as there seemed to be no real threats to peace. All seemed right in America. It was hard to see what they were talking about. Yet the book gave me an uneasy feeling and increased my sensitivity to observing the changes that were going on around me.

There seems to be little doubt that we are now living in the middle of The Fourth Turning. In fact, the emergence and success of Donald Trump in the political realm confirms it.  The same can be said for the the success of Bernie Sanders in the Democrat primary as well.

One of the key elements in a Fourth Turning is that a point is reached where the public realizes that their institutions are dysfunctional and they come to the conclusion that they are increasingly vulnerable with the current status quo. Such was the case as the colonists grew distrustful and frustrated with British rule, the deep divisions created within the country with slavery that led to the Civil War and the substantial financial hardships that everyone felt in the Great Depression.

A point is reached when the pubic coalesces or large blocs of voters support a strong leader to tear down the existing social, economic and social construct and replace it with something else. The result may be better, or far worse, but the public will nevertheless demand something different.

Barack Obama was perfectly positioned to be that leader as he entered office shortly after The Fourth Turning began. However, he squandered his opportunity. The people voted for hope and change and they got Obamacare and not much else.  He told the people what they wanted to hear. However, instead of being the uniter that people were looking for he just further divided what was already a divided nation.

You begin to see how important this is in political terms when you consider what Strauss and Howe said about where we are headed politically in The Fourth Turning.

"Soon after the catalyst, a national election will produce a sweeping political alignment, as one faction or coalition capitalizes on a new public demand for decisive action. Republicans, Democrats, or perhaps a new party will decisively win the long partisan tug-of-war, ending the era of split government that had lasted through four decades.  The winners will now have the power to pursue the more potent, less incrementalist agenda which their adversaries had darkly warned.  This new regime will enthrone itself for the duration of the Crisis.  Regardless of its ideology, that new leadership will assert public authority and demand private sacrifice. Where leaders had once been inclined to alleviate societal pressures, they will now aggravate them to command the nation's attention."

The big point here is that a point is reached where the public mood shifts from one that is less concerned with individual rights and more concerned with the collective good. People ultimately will seek this as a means for society to survive the Crisis. It has no other choice.

What will the winning trends from a political standpoint be according to Strauss and Howe as we move through the remainder of The Fourth Turning?

• Calls to close the gap between rich and poor
• Reverse the decline of the middle class
• Expand children's programs relative to senior programs
• Restore an ethic of personal responsibility
• De-fund time-encrusted bureaucracies
• Promote traditional values
• America will become more isolationist than today in it unwillingness to coordinate with other countries 
• America will be less globally dependent than it is today with smaller cross-border trade and capital flows
• The economic role of government will shift toward far more spending on defense and public works than on elder care and debt service

I don't know about you, but a lot of this sounds a lot like Donald Trump. Or Bernie Sanders for that matter. It does not sound like Hillary Clinton.

Look at some of the words above and see if you don't agree that in some ways it seems as if Trump has a keen understanding of where we are and what people are looking for. It is as if he is looking ahead and the Republican establishment can only see what is behind them.


"Decisive action".  There is very little gray in Trump's outlook.

"Assert public authority."  Think about Trump's views on eminent domain.

"Aggravate rather than alleviate societal pressures." Trump's views and statements on immigration.

"Reverse the decline of the middle class."  His major voting target is forgotten working class voters.

"De-fund time-encrusted bureaucracies."  His call to consider the de-funding of NATO.

"Promote traditional values."  "Make America Great Again."

"More isolationist."  Very consistent with his views of Middle East.

"Less globally dependent".  His attacks on NAFTA, China, Japan on trade.

"Defense and Infrastructure."  Two of Trump's favorite topics in every speech.


If The Fourth Turning has brought us Trump, can he lead us out of the Crisis? We can only hope. There are no promises. History is not made by events but by the reaction of human beings to events. We are hurtling down the road for a rendezvous with history of our own making. The choices that have been made and those that remain to be made will have deep consequences. We can only trust that the American people will make the right choice.

"In recent years, many Americans have despaired that their nation no longer produces leaders who can galvanize and inspire. Yet it is the turning, not the nation, that elevates great people to the apex of power. Lincoln and FDR are both cases in point. Both had to wait for the Crisis to hit. An Unraveling (the Third Turning) is an era when most people of intelligence, vision and integrity do not seek (much less get elected to) high public offices.

After the Fourth Turning arrives, however, a Lincoln-like leader will be more likely to seek office, and a Lincoln-like leader could be exactly what America needs, wants and gets."

I know it is hard to imagine associating Donald Trump and Abraham Lincoln but that might be the bet we are making in 2016. We may need no less than a Lincoln with what lies ahead.

We are not only in The Fourth Turning we are also in the bottom of the ninth inning if you believe the predictions of where Strauss and Howe have us heading. We already have two outs and two strikes on us for putting Obama in the game. This is no time to swing and miss again. Trump's chatter has dumbfounded the chattering class. His chatter has put him one step away from The White House.  He better be able to hit one over the wall...and build a wall while he is doing it!

May God Bless America once again.

Predictions, Words and Actions

On the eve of the 2012 national election I predicted that Mitt Romney would win when I wrote, "If I Am Wrong, I Am Wrong About America".

I was wrong about America in 2012. And it hurt...a lot.

I did not understand it then and I still do not understand it today.

I did not support Barack Obama in 2008 but I fully understood why he won. I genuinely hoped that he could turn his uplifting words into action. It did not take long to see that "Hope and Change" was just a slick political slogan. By 2012 we could see that it nothing but words.

In fact, I wrote a blog in September, 2012 about how President Obama should really be called "President Opposite" as almost every everything he said he was going to do turned out to be exactly the opposite. It is worth the read even four years later. Nothing has changed. It is just much worse.

President Opposite
Photo Credit: FreakingNews.com

Those were the facts and yet the American people re-elected him against one of the most decent and honorable men who has even run for President.

As a result, I don't make election predictions anymore. I especially don't make predictions when you consider that the pollsters who do this for a living do not seem to have a clue.

For example, consider these two national tracking polls that came out this morning. They could not be further apart.

LA Times-Trump + 5.6%

ABC- Clinton + 5.0%

Of course, what really matters is the electoral college tally. However, state polls in the key battleground states also do not "predict" anything. All of these states are tied or well within the margin of error.

Florida
Ohio
North Carolina
Iowa
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Colorado
Nevada
New Hampshire

As I have written before, this election will be decided on turnout. Will the traditional Democratic constituencies--African-Americans, Millennials, Single Women---turnout like they did for Barack Obama? If they do, Hillary Clinton will win. If they don't, Donald Trump can close the history books on the Clintons and The White House. However, it remains to be seen whether the FBI investigation of the Clintons will open a completely new chapter to close the book once and for all.

While this election is difficult to predict it has also been a difficult one for voters to decide who to support. Both candidates are viewed skeptically by most voters. Voters do not believe Hillary is honest and trustworthy and they question Trump's temperament. I understand the angst when you believe you are choosing between the lesser of two evils.

Let me provide some perspective on that decision as I have assessed it myself.

Look deeper at the two candidate and assess their words and actions. It is the same thing I did when assessing President Obama's performance after his first term. His words sounded great, his actions did not come anywhere near his words. In fact, in most cases, his actions were the exact opposite of his words.

I have watched and assessed Hillary Clinton for over 30 years. Her actions belie her words. This woman is deeply corrupt. In Donald Trump words, she is "corrupt".

 A few examples for younger readers who may not know her complete history.

• Hillary was a young attorney on the Congressional Committee investigating Watergate. The Chief Counsel of that committee said of Clinton, “She was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”…"I would not — could not recommend her for any further positions.”
• Hillary turned a $1,000 investment into a $98,000 profit in one year (1978) trading commodity futures. She claims she did her own research. The evidence appears to show she had insider information from a major agricultural producer in Arkansas, Tyson Foods. The profit on these trades was more than the combined income of both Clintons that year from their regular jobs. Despite her enormous success, she never traded again. Why, if you were so successful, would you quit?
• On January 21, 2001, The Washington Post reported that the Clintons "left the White House yesterday with an unprecedented $190,027 worth of gifts received over the last eight years." Most of the items were furniture, furnishings, artwork and china that they moved to their newly purchased homes in Georgetown and Chappaqua, NY.  Because of the story, the Clintons were ultimately forced to return $28,000 worth of furniture and they also agreed to pay for $86,000 in other "gifts" that had been given to them by individuals when they were in The White House.
• We all know about Hillary's private email server which Fox News has reported that the FBI is 99% certain was hacked by foreign intelligence services. Word now comes from New York Post reporting that Hillary routinely emailed classified materials to the maid at her Georgetown house while she was Secretary of State for her maid to print out. Her maid, Maria Santos, is a Filipino immigrant who I am not even sure is a naturalized American citizen.

On the other hand, Donald Trump has at times been crude, crass and anything but politically correct in his words. What about his actions? He has a lifetime record of results and success. His actions belie his words. He did not get where he is with bad temperament or by running rough shod over people. He did not succeed unilaterally. He had to agree to deals with people and get results. I think he understands people very well. How to incentivize them. How to motivate them. How to persuade them. And most importantly, how to negotiate with them.

If nothing else, Donald Trump is a master negotiator. The biggest thing that his words do for him is to establish expectations. In behavioral economics, they would be called "anchors". What is the value of anchoring?  In negotiations, the first figure or demand named in a negotiation subtly shifts the other side's expectations of what it will have to pay or accept in a deal.

Business people and others don't think they are affected by anchors. They don't think they could be manipulated in that way. Margaret Neale, a professor at Stanford's Graduate School of Business, who is an expert in negotiating strategy, and who conduct executive seminars on negotiations for business leaders, disagrees.  Here is what she says about "anchors" in William Poundstone's excellent book, "Priceless."

"We spend a lot of time talking to real folks making real decisions about the power of these anchors. They say it's not possible that I'm influenced by that; I've done a lot of things and I know. And I say you don't know."

Neale goes on to talk about the research that has been done that actually compares results with and without anchors.

"I can put Maggie in this situation without an anchor, and then I can put Maggie in that exact same situation with an anchor. And I can then compare the differences in her behavior, There are differences, and they are systematic, and they are powerful effects."

Will Donald Trump actually build the wall and make Mexico pay? I don't know but I know he will get the very best deal he can for the United States by establishing that anchor.

Will Donald Trump challenge the results of the election because of fraud? I don't know but he has set an anchor (expectation) that people better watch out for fraud because he may do something about it.

You can say the same thing about the Iran deal, NATO, NAFTA or his claims that he will sue this person or that person after the campaign.

Trump uses his words to set the stage for the actions he wants in the end.

Politicians like Clinton and Obama say the words to get elected but have no real idea how to implement them for action.

Think about that if you are still unsure of how to vote on Tuesday.

Margin of Error, Margin of Victory

Most of the national polls that survey the Presidential election race use samples that have a margin of error of 3.0-3.5 points. That means when you see a poll result that shows a 47-47 tie, either number could deviate by that amount. Therefore, a 47-47 tie could actually be 50-44 in favor of one of the candidates.

Almost all of the national polls are now within the margin of error so we appear to be heading to another close election.

I thought it might be useful to review the states that were within a 7% margin in 2012 as we head into the final days before Election Day. These are the states that have the greatest potential to change this year since they had the tightest victory margin last time.

Elections are won at the margin. If a candidate can turnover a vote that was for the opposing party the last time around, they get a double advantage in the final tally. Thus, a voter for Obama in 2012 who changes their vote to Trump this year, reduces Clinton's vote by one and increases it by one compared to what Romney did in 2012. If 1% of voters in a state do this it actually produces a 2% effect in the margin.

Turning over a voter is much more powerful than merely finding a new voter. A new vote merely adds a vote but does not subtract one from the other side relative to the last election. To have the same effect in the final margin, you need to find two new voters for every one you turn.

With that background, let's look at the states that Romney won by a margin of 7% or less in 2012. Electoral votes are shown by each state.

North Carolina (15)  +2.04%

That's right, there was only one state that Romney won that he did not carry by at least 7%

These are the states that Obama won by less than 7%. It is a much longer list.

Colorado (9)            +5.37%

Florida (29)              +0.88%

Iowa (6)                   +5.81%

Nevada (6)               +6.68%

New Hampshire (4) +5.58%

Ohio (18)                  +2.98%

Pennsylvania (20)     +5.39%

Virginia 13)               +3.87%

Wisconsin (10)          +6.94%


Romney won 206 electoral votes out of the 270 that he needed in 2012.

How does Trump find his margin of victory in 2016?

First, he clearly needs to hold North Carolina as Romney did in 2012. Obama won the state in 2008 with a margin of just 0.3%.

Starting from Romney's base of 206, Trump needs to add 64 electoral votes to become our next President.

Winning Florida and Ohio would give him 47. He still needs 17 more.

Pennsylvania is the easiest route to get him there with its 20 electoral votes

Failing that, he needs to put several states together.

Looking at 2012, you would think Virginia should be winnable but the DC suburbs in Northern Virginia are affluent because of the establishment in Washington. Donald Trump is their worst nightmare. In fact, a recent poll indicated that 27% of federal government employees said they may quit if Donald Trump becomes President. The same for the lobbyist crowd. If you wonder how much power the federal bureaucracy has, look no further than the vote totals from Northern Virginia on election night.

Looking at the numbers, you see why Trump has been in Colorado, Iowa and Nevada so much and why he plans to have his final rally in New Hampshire.

Trump may also have an outside chance in Minnesota (+7.69% for Obama) and Michigan (+9.50%). It would still only take a net of 1 out of every 20 voters to turn from Obama to Trump to turn those states in his favor.

All in all, the margin of error in current polls suggests that the margin of victory in this election is going to be marginal whoever wins.

The Conscience of a Conscientious Objector

I am looking forward to viewing Mel Gibson's film, Hacksaw Ridge, which tells the true story of Pfc. Desmond Doss who won the Congressional Medal of Honor despite his religious beliefs as a conscientious objector who was opposed to carrying a weapon or killing anyone.

Despite his views, Doss enlisted in the Army even though he could have gotten a deferment because of his conscientious objector status. He did so because he believed it was his moral obligation to serve and to support the fight for freedom and religious liberty.

Desmond Doss being awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor by President Harry Truman
Credit: www. desmonddoss.com

The story of Desmond Doss seems to be especially relevant as we enter the final stretch of this year's Presidential election.

I still talk to people who tell me that they can't vote for Hillary Clinton and they don't want to vote for Donald Trump. I understand where they are coming from. I could never vote for Hillary Clinton based on her longstanding record of corruption and incompetence. At the same time, Donald Trump was no better than my 15th choice out of 17 GOP Presidential aspirants.

Clinton-Trump was no more my choice for this year's Presidential election than it was for Desmond Doss to find out his country was going to war with Germany and Japan.

Doss recognized what was at stake even though he set limits on what he would do. I hope that those still confused and confounded by the choice before us will understand that they have a moral obligation as well.

We may not be in a shooting war like Desmond Doss faced but we are in a war nonetheless.

We are in an internal war to defeat those those who want to ignore the rule of law, subvert our constitutional principles and totally ignore our Judeo-Christian values.

There is no place to be a constitutional objector in this election if someone cares about this country and those core elements of what has made America great.

There are far too many problems for people to say that they can't make a choice and therefore they will not vote. Consider just a few of the headlines we see everyday.

Obamacare. The Economy. Our Middle East Policy. ISIS. The Budget Deficit. Race Relations. Immigration. Terrorism. Education. Crime.

We need to add to all these issues the very real possibility that we could be electing a person who will be under criminal investigation by the FBI at the very time we need the undivided attention of a President who can solve these problems. Can the country withstand a constitutional crisis at this critical juncture in our history? The risk is simply too great to take that chance.

It is also not a choice to think that voting for a 3rd party candidate or write-in a preferred candidate is the solution. If someone is going to do that they might as well throw their ballot away. There have been viable third party candidates in my lifetime--Ross Perot, John Anderson to name two---but that is simply not the case this year.

Desmond Doss was opposed to raising a rifle to kill in war but he was dedicated to the idea of protecting his country's freedom and his religious freedom. Therefore, he still served his country and his fellow Americans in a way few ever have despite being opposed to war and violence.

You may loathe Hillary Clinton. You make not like Donald Trump. However, that is the only choice before you. It may not be an easy choice but it should be a clear choice right now. You may not like crude. However, corrupt and criminal is totally unacceptable, especially when it involves the people's trust and our national security.

Desmond Doss was a conscientious objector. However, he also knew that the freedoms of his country, including his freedom to follow his religious freedom, were only possible because others would step up to defend his freedom and his rights. A country full of conscientious objectors will not be a nation for very long.

Don't expect others to defend you and your country because you don't like something someone said or how they said it. Don't walk away because the choice is hard or it makes you uncomfortable.

No one is asking you to donate money, put up a yard sign, go to a rally, go door to door, volunteer at a phone bank, convince your neighbor or stand on a street corner telling everyone who you voted for.
If you want to be a conscientious objector in this election, you can totally refuse to do any of those things just as Doss refused to pick up a rifle.

However, Desmond Doss understood his moral obligation to serve.

Everyone should also understand their moral obligation to vote.

If you are to have any conscience as a conscientious objector in this election, you can't leave it to someone else.

Freedom is not free.

Desmond Doss understood it and did something about it and maintained his conscience.

It should be a lesson for us all.

Desmond Doss Medal of Honor
Credit:desmonddoss.com

Burning Coals and Broken Glass

What is your vote worth?

How much are you willing to go through to cast your vote? 

Are you willing to walk across burning coals for your candidate?

Credit: LeedsAlive.com

This is what a recent survey by the Benenson Strategy Group was trying to determine that I came across. Its focus was determining the degree of enthusiasm that voters have for Trump and Clinton.

Let me say at the outset that I have never seen anything like the rallies that Trump has been able to put together this year on the campaign trail. It is nothing short of astounding. It is even more impressive when you compare the crowds he has been able to attract compared to Hillary. Trump is filling large arenas. Hillary is struggling to draw crowds to medium-sized amphitheaters. 

That said, let's look at the survey results on voter enthusiasm between hard-core Clinton and Trump supporters. Benenson measured this by asking likely voters about what events could possibly dissuade them from voting for their candidate. In effect, what could keep you from voting?

The events that could conceivably deter them were divided into two categories. The first were relatively non-severe such as storms, long lines at the polls and threats of violence at polling places.

45% of Clinton supporters stated there was no event that could dissuade them from voting in this first tier of events. By comparison, 90% of Trump supporters said there was nothing that could keep them from the polls.

Looking at the specific events that might prevent them from voting, let's look at some comparisons.

17% of Hillary supporters said they would not vote if there was a 90min+ line to vote.

  0% of Trump supporters stated that would dissuade them.

12% of Hillary supporters said they would not vote if there was a threat of Zika or another epidemological agent.

  1% of Trump supporters stated that would keep them away from voting.

The survey then asked about Tier 2 events such as active riots or civil unrest, a natural disaster, or a lethal outbreak of something like smallpox.

Not one Hillary hard core supporter could pass all the Tier 2 events. For example, 40% would not vote if there were active riots near the polling place. 23% would not vote if there was a natural disaster, etc.

On the other hand, 74% of Trump supporters said they would vote no matter what. In effect, they said come hell or high water I am voting for Trump and nothing will stand in my way.

0% said that active riots or civil unrest would keep them away. Only 3% said the threat of war would keep them at home. The only major deterrent to Trump supporters would be a lethal epidemiological event. 16% stated that would keep them from voting.

That is a pretty amazing level of enthusiasm and engagement and a testament to the value that Trump's most steadfast supporters put on the value of their vote.

Will Hillary's supporters walk across those burning coals?

No way. They would not want anything to do with coal and what it might do to our carbon footprint, anyway.

Will they walk across a bed of glass for her?

Credit:Beneathyoursoul.tumblr.com

We will know that by this time next week.

It just remains to be seen whether that glass is from Hillary breaking the glass ceiling or whether the entire ceiling has crashed down on her campaign due to the FBI investigations of her email server and the Clinton Foundation.

With Friends Like This, Who Needs Enemies?

One of the interesting insights in the WikiLeaks Podesta emails is what Hillary's friends and supporters say about her behind her back.

That is a major reason that I am confident that Hillary will have few friends who will defend or support should she lose this election to Donald Trump. These people are not believers in Hillary, they only believe in the power and prestige they believe they obtain through her.

It is actually a two-way street. Hillary is famous for using people. They are just repaying the compliment.

Let's take a look at what some of those friends and supporters have said about her behind her back int those emails?

Remember that all of these emails were to or from John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman who also previously served as Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff in The White House and was Counselor for Barack Obama.

"You represent a client that is not honest and is most likely criminal. Hillary and Bill are not worth trying to defend as they are manipulative and they use people".

Podesta himself wrote to Hillary's Communication Chief, Jen Palmieri about inserting something regarding "everyday Americans" in a speech early in the campaign.

"I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use it once the first time she says I'm running for president because you and everyday Americans need a champion."

Neera Tanden, President of the Center for American Progress, a progressive public policy research and advocacy group, is one of her biggest critics behind closed doors.

"...she doesn't seem to know what planet we are all living in at this moment."

Tanden again to Podesta.

"Sometimes HRC/WJC have the worst judgement."

Tanden to Podesta where she tells him she knows that the email thing isn't on the level.

"I know this email thing isn't on the level. I'm fully aware of that. But her inability to just do a national interview and communicate genuine feelings of remorse and regret is now, I fear, becoming a character problem (more so than honesty)."

Tanden laments to Podesta about Hillary's poor instincts.

"Almost no one knows better me that her instincts can be terrible."

Podesta agrees with Tanden about Hillary's instincts in the same email chain.

"We've taken on a lot of water that won't be easy to pump out of the boat. Most of that has to do with terrible decisions made pre-campaign, but a lot has to do with her instincts."

Remember, all of this is what people were willing to write down.

What are they really saying behind her back?

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Things I Know And Things I Don't

There are things I know and things I don't know.

For example, in this election I don't know whether Clinton or Trump will win even though we are 9 days from the election.

A big reason I don't know is that, as I have written before, a lot depends on the voter turnout. For Hillary to win she needs a lot more Democrats to turn out than Republicans. Black voters have to turn out for her and she needs Millennials to support her in similar numbers that they did for Barack Obama. I don't know how any of this will play out right now.

I also don't know what other shoes may drop over the next week. For example, the Clintons are known to play real political hardball. After all, this is their life. They have nothing else. I would expect that they will throw everything they can at Donald Trump in the next few day if they can get their hands on it.

I also don't know what else WikiLeaks has to publish. Interestingly, WikiLeaks has published over 35,000 emails thus far from John Podesta. Not one email has been to or from Hillary Clinton and her campaign chairman. Isn't that a little bit curious?

If Clinton's email are going to be revealed, I would expect we will see them in the next several days.

There are things that I know. However, I try to always be cautious when I think I know anything as I believe Mark Twain was right when he said,

“What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.”

Accordingly, here is what I think I know.

Hillary and the FBI Investigation

Friday's announcement by FBI Director Comey that they are reopening the investigation of Hillary's private email server is damaging to her.

The most damaging thing that can happen to a politician is being exposed as a hypocrite. For example, being a champion for African-Americans and being caught on tape disparaging a black worker.

The next most damaging is hard evidence that supports a pre-existing narrative about the candidate. The Watergate investigation was a continuing problem for Richard Nixon because he was already known as "Tricky Dick". The 47% comment by Mitt Romney did significant damage to him because a narrative had already been established that he "did not care about you and me." Most people already do not think Hillary is honest or trustworthy. Trump calls her "corrupt." The FBI investigation supports that narrative with hard evidence. It will hurt her down the stretch.

The Polls

The pollsters are making big assumptions in their polling data that voting turnout in 2016 will look a lot like 2008 and 2012. They are expecting a big turnout of Democrat identified voters compared to Republican identified voters. I don't know about that.

Here are the weightings in a few of the major polls right now between Democrats and Republicans. This means that Democrats are oversampled compared to Republicans in the survey.

IBD  D+7
ABC D+9
Fox   D+9

In these three polls, Hillary is up by +2 (IBD), +1 (ABC) and +3 (Fox). Bear in mind, all three of these polls were largely taken before the new revelations about the FBI investigation of Hillary. In addition, in the ABC tracking poll, Hillary has lost 11 points in one week to Trump.

Source: ABC/Washington Post Tracking Poll, 10-29-16

These party weightings might be right but I doubt it.  For example, even in Obama's landslide year of 2008, Democrats were only +7 in the actual vote. In 2102, that dropped to D+6. By comparison, in 2004 when Bush won, equal numbers of D's and R's voted. In 2010, when the GOP took over the House in a landslide it was even between D's and R's. In 2014, another big year for Republicans, it was +1 R.

What I do know is that in order for Hillary to be clinging to her small lead in these polls right now they are relying on a heavier Democrat turnout than Obama got in 2008. That does not seem realistic considering the enthusiasm gap between Hillary and Trump we see at rallies and in social media.

The Pew Research Center has followed trends in party identification in their research since 1992. Here is a graphic showing those trends. The gap between self-identified Democrats and Republicans is actually much lower in their research (D+4) than it was in Democrat wins in 1992 and 2008 where it was in double digits.

I know that the Democrats have a great machine to turnout voters. They can take a bus to an inner city church, community center or welfare center and easily deliver dozens of voters to an early voting site. Republicans have nothing comparable. They have to rely on their voters showing up one by one to the polling location.

I don't know that the Democrats are going to be able to replicate what they did in 2008 in 2012. Hillary Clinton is not Barack Obama. Whether this happens or not will probably determine this election.

If Hillary Loses

I also know that if Donald Trump defeats Hillary Clinton we will see unbounded anger and antagonism directed at the Clintons by liberal Democrats. They will be seething that Hillary could have allowed Donald Trump to keep the Democrats from winning The White House and controlling the Supreme Court. Hell hath no fury like a scorned liberal Democrat!

We have already seen in the WikiLeaks emails how many of Hillary's closest advisors and supporters distrust or disrespect her in private. If she loses, there will be few supporters who speak on her behalf. She will be an anathema to Democrats in losing to someone like Donald Trump. If the FBI investigation turns up anything, she will have few defending her.

It all goes to show how much turns on this election for Hillary Rodham Clinton. There have been few people in history who are perched on a precipice where voters leaning one way or the other could mean going from hero to zero so abruptly. Of course, if she makes it off the precipice on election day she still faces a fall down the cliff's wall depending on where the FBI investigation ends.

This is why I expect that Hillary will do almost anything in these final days. This may be an election for Donald Trump. It is much, much, more than that for Hillary Rodham Clinton. This is her life. This is her legacy. This even might be about her freedom.

In any event, no matter what happens, it seems clear that Hillary will separate ways from her long-time aide Huma Abedin. Abedin is in serious legal jeopardy that, at a minimum, includes perjury and/or obstruction of justice not to mention potential mishandling of national security information.

------------------------------------------------------------

That probably is enough on things I know and things I don't for now. After all, people who know too much about the Clintons have not always fared well. That may be about to change. It is easy when you are on top. It is much tougher when you no longer have any power left and nobody is willing to pay for play.

Assimilation Asymmetry

The United States has been called a "nation of immigrants."

Most of us trace our American heritage back to immigrants who made their way to America at some point.

For many who have made the trek to the United States it is a challenging ordeal. Moving into a new culture with new customs is not easy and is only made more difficult if a new language is involved.

The first generation immigrant often leads a difficult existence requiring hard work often toiling at jobs that native Americans do not want. In the late 1800's it meant mining coal, working in dirty steel mills or in agriculture. Today it might mean construction labor, working in the hospitality industry or doing migrant labor.

The occasional first generation immigrant makes a big impact in their new country but more likely it is the second generation of that immigrant who builds on the foundation that was established by their parents and becomes an integral part of America. Over the years those children have assimilated into the American culture and are comfortable with the language having grown up and been educated in American schools. In fact, when asked why they took the risk and immigrated to the United States, most will say, " I did it so my children could have a better life."

PHOTO: THE STATUE OF LIBERTY-ELLIS ISLAND FOUNDATION, INC./NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Here are a few examples of second generation immigrants who have had major impacts on America. There are undoubtedly millions and millions more who are not household names but who are helping to make America work every day nonetheless.

Sergey Brin---co-founder of Google

Jerry Yang---co-founder or Yahoo!

Thomas Edison---Inventor

Andrew Carnegie---Industrialist

Bob Hope ---Entertainer

Walt Disney---Cartoonist and Imagineer

Marco Rubio---Senator from Florida

Ted Cruz---Senator from Texas

Colin Powell---former Secretary of Defense

Nikki Haley---Governor of South Carolina

Bobby Jindal---Governor of Louisiana

There is one other name I should mention---Donald J. Trump. His mother immigrated to the United States at the age of 18 from Scotland in order to find work as a maid.

Donald Trump with his father and mother while a cadet at New York Military Academy
Credit: Instagram/realdonaldtrump

Looking at this list, I wonder whether the influx of the Muslim immigration we have experienced over the last decade or so will follow this pattern? Will they assimilate and embrace the culture and customs of the United States as easily and as well as prior immigrants?

It is an important question. Why? If a nation does not have its citizens adhering to a core culture and beliefs it is ripe for dissension, division and conflict. Despite the melting pot that America has always been, this has never been a significant obstacle for our country because of the assimilation of the second generation that has occurred consistently in our society.

Will Muslims be the same?

I hope that will be the case.  However, there are troubling signals that are difficult to understand.

Consider the four highest profile terrorist acts that have occurred on our soil in recent years.

Fort Hood Murders

San Bernardino Government Office

Orlando Gay Nightclub

New York City and New Jersey Bombings

Fort Hood

This terrorist attack (which the Obama Administration referred to as "workplace violence") was carried out by Major Nidal Hassan who was born, raised and educated in the United States to Muslim parents who had immigrated from Palestine. Nidal joined the U.S. Army right after graduating from high school and had both his college education and his medical training paid for by the U.S. Army. Nevertheless, he killed 13 fellow soldiers and wounded over 30 in the worst shooting ever at a U.S. military base.

San Bernardino

Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik  (a Pakistani native who had recently immigrated to the United States) carried out this terrorist attack at a state government office in San Bernardino, California where Farook worked. They killed 14 and wounded 22. Farook was born in Chicago to Pakistani Muslim parents and was totally raised and educated in the United States, including a degree from California State University in San Bernardino.

Orlando 

The Pulse, a gay nightclub, in Orlando was specifically targeted because of its LGBT clientele earlier this year by Omar Mir Mateen. Mateen had been born in New York to Afghan Muslim parents and was totally raised and educated in America. He killed 49 people and wounded 53 others that were at the gay nightclub that night.


New York City and New Jersey Bombings

Less than six weeks ago, a pipe bomb exploded in New Jersey along the path of a U.S. Marine Corps
charity run with no injuries. That same night a pressure cook bomb exploded in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan injuring 31 civilians. A second pressure cooker bomb in Manhattan and additional bombs were found in Elizabeth, New Jersey in the aftermath of the Manhattan bombing. Ahmad Khan Rahimi was arrested and charged with the bombings. Rahimi was born in Afghanistan to Muslim parents but immigrated to the U.S. at age 2 meaning he was entirely raised and educated in this country including two years of junior college. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2011.

All of these terrorist acts were not committed by foreigners, recent refugee or immigrants. They were perpetrated by 2nd generation U.S. citizens who were raised and educated in the United States.

Donald Trump has famously said "There's something is going on" when confronted with issues like this that don't seem to add up. The media and establishment elite has enjoyed deriding him when he says this.

However, in looking at these facts and thinking about this, don't you have to agree with him?

When have we ever seen anything like this in the long history of the United States of America?

We are not accustomed to seeing 2nd generation immigrants who have grown up and been educated in this country turn around and try to tear it down and kill their fellow citizens. Traditionally, these have been the people doing the most to build, bolster and benefit our nation.

How do we explain this assimilation asymmetry when it comes to Muslims?

I wish I knew.

However, it should not be brushed off and laughed off as Hillary Clinton would like us to do while telling us that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism.  All of these men had this is common---they were Radical Islamists who committed acts of terrorism against their fellow citizens of the United States.

What is going on?

It is a serious question and it needs a serious answer.

In fact, it might be a question of life and death based on what we have seen before.