The New York – New Jersey Bombings Illustrate Why Donald Trump Will Win

By Onan Coca – Re-Bloggd From

In 2004 President George W. Bush ran a hard-fought reelection campaign against a popular, if doofy, Democrat opponent John Kerry. For all of his faults, Kerry was far more well-liked and far less scandal plagued than today’s Democrat candidate. Bush was able to eke out a reelection victory mostly on the shoulders of his decisive reaction to the 9/11 tragedy.

In fact, the 2004 election made the phrase “security moms” famous, as the once known “soccer mom” had suddenly awakened to our dangerous new world where Islamic terrorism was the reality and her “mama bear” instincts had taken over. The “security mom” knew she had to do all she could to care for her loved ones, and that now meant using her vote to keep them safe.

Fast forward 12 years to the 2016 presidential election and the new generation of “security moms” will soon be playing a pivotal role (again) in another national election. The 2016 version of these security minded voters seem to be preparing to hand the presidency to GOP candidate Donald Trump, and the events of this past weekend explain why.

On Saturday morning a pipe bomb exploded just before the start of a 5k fun run in Seaside Park, New Jersey. The event was called off and authorities swept the area finding two more unexploded devices. Later that night, a pressure cooker bomb exploded in Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood, injuring 29 people and sending the city into a panic. Shortly after the explosion authorities swept the surrounding neighborhood and found another unexploded device a few blocks away.

Come Sunday morning, liberals and their friends in the media were busy condemning Donald Trump’s comments about the explosions being “bombs” and about the likelihood that we were witnessing a terrorist act. Trump’s opponents were practically hyperventilating about his “rash” response and his “haste” to judgment, all while arguing that there was “no evidence” of a connection to Islam or to terrorist organizations.

Then late Sunday evening authorities arrested five “persons of interest” around the same time that 5 more bombs were being discovered in an Elizabeth, New Jersey train station.

By early Monday morning police had captured Ahmad Khan Rahami, a naturalized American citizen of Afghani descent, who was living in Elizabeth, New Jersey. Rahami, it turns out, was a “known wolf” with ties to international Muslim terrorism. By the time the East Coast was waking up, liberals were beginning to realize that Donald Trump had been right all along…

Consider New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s comments on Sunday:

Absent a motivation, Mr. de Blasio suggested the word terrorism should not be used, shaking his head in disapproval at the notion that the basic facts of the bombing could be described that way.

“Here is what we know: It was intentional, it was a violent act, it was certainly a criminal act, it was a bombing — that’s what we know,” he said on Sunday, flanked by law enforcement officials at Police Headquarters in Lower Manhattan. “To understand there were any specific motivations, political motivations, any connection to an organization — that’s what we don’t know.”

The liberal reticence at calling terrorism terrorism never ceases to amaze me. It’s as though de Blasio believes that if you say the word terrorism you automatically mean that a Muslim person has carried out a violent act. Taking his own words – “It was intentional, it was a violent act, it was certainly a criminal act, it was a bombing…” this is the very definition of terrorism. It’s an act meant to incite a reaction. The only reason anyone would ever set off a bomb without some other concurring criminal act (like using a bomb to rob a bank), would be for terroristic purposes. Yet, de Blasio couldn’t bring himself to use the word and instead just described the act of terrorism to reporters. Even New York’s liberal Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-NY), who was slow to call the act terrorism on Saturday, had changed his tune by Sunday. “A bomb exploding in New York is obviously an act of terrorism. A bomb going off is generically a terrorist activity.”

But by Monday de Blasio’s tune finally changed.

“We have reason to believe this was an act of terror,” New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said.

A-duh. Here’s a newsflash, Bill… every other thinking person in America has already come to this conclusion. Thanks for joining us.

Meanwhile, while de Blasio was busy dissembling, Hillary Clinton was busy using the terrorism to attack Donald Trump for being too hard on terrorism. I kid you not. Clinton’s argument is that Donald Trump’s mean words are going to make the terrorists dislike us even more, so they’re going to do more terroristy things.

“I don’t want to speculate but here’s what we know about I think it is important for voters to hear this and weigh it in making their choice in November,” Clinton said. “We know that a lot of the rhetoric used by Donald Trump is being seized upon by terrorists.


This is an amazing argument to make, considering that the Obama/Clinton foreign policy era has been one of appeasement and uber-careful rhetoric (when it comes to Islam) and yet, Islamic terrorism is worse today than ever before!

Ultimately, it won’t be the cavalcade of corruption, or the litany of scandals, or the lies, or her obviously failing health that ends Hillary Clinton’s hopes of being President. No, it will be the glaring differences between Clinton and Trump on dealing with the very real threat we face from Islamic terrorism. More Americans will decide that to continue the Obama/Clinton policy of appeasement and apology would be insanity, and that America would be safer handing the reins of leadership to Donald Trump. The liberal response to this weekend’s terrorism is why Donald Trump will be elected the next President of the United States, and it’s why the terrorist supporters at CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood are so worried.


3 thoughts on “The New York – New Jersey Bombings Illustrate Why Donald Trump Will Win

  1. What is a “terrorist act”? Generally speaking, it is an act designed to invoke fear and outrage among a civilian population. An act where the violence is not provoked by a specific cause or act.

    A bomb might or might not be terrorism. It takes time to determine the purpose and cause.

    One defense against terrorism is to “refuse to be terrorized”. To try to moderate one’s response. To act with intelligence and caution and reserve. It is the fundamental desire of the terrorist to get the public and its leaders to react with fear, fear-mongering, and rashness.

    The reason so many national security specialist (including many with strong Republican ties or who served in Republican Federal administrations) are so against Trump, is that his responses lack measure, maturity or knowledge. (It’s worth reading their public letter.

    It’s true: “if you hear hoof-beats, think horses not zebras”. If you hear of an explosion, it’s not foolish to wonder “is it terrorism”.

    But good leadership does not involve reacting before knowledge, and it does involve reacting with proportion.

    Whether or not Trump becomes President:he’s not a thoughtful leader. The problem here is not whether he was right in the long run. The problem is that he came to conclusions before the facts were in, and did so in a way which increases peoples level of fear. To increase fear is to help terrorists sow terror.

    Fear and terror a large portion of his campaign platform – it’s in his personal best interests to fan those flames. But doing so does not necessarily show his qualifications for the Presidency.


    • American leaders are supposed to look out for the interests of Americans, first and foremost. If there is a possible threat for outside our country, then I want the person I vote for to be decisive. I don’t want myself, my loved ones, or other Americans to be in danger unnecessarily. If that means keeping a non-American out while we check to see who he is, that’s my leader’s job. Anything less is dereliction of duty.

      BTW, all of us have to make decisions based on incomplete information every day. Saying that such judgements automatically are bad is not helpful. Also, to say that excluding potentially dangerous people is not “proportional” makes no sense to me.


      • You are moving the center of your argument, which is often a sign that the original argument has been found wanting. Rather than admit error, you are shifting ground.

        1. I didn’t speak against decisive leadership. Why would I? I’m not against it. I’m speaking against decision-making in ignorance. (“not involve reacting before knowledge”) Which we can all agree, is bad. (Can’t we?) Don’t we all prefer informed decision-making? Don’t you try to make informed decisions?

        2. I didn’t suggest that looking out for American interests is bad. It’s not. But one can do so poorly, or well. I’m in favor of someone who has a track record of thinking before speaking or deciding. Of someone that understands the complexities and nuances of situations.

        3. I didn’t talk about decisions having to be made with incomplete information. Sometimes (often?) they do. But there is a strong categorical difference between making a decision using the best available facts, because we can no longer wait to make one, and making decisions too early, and in deliberate ignorance.

        4. I didn’t discuss “excluding potentially dangerous people” because that wasn’t the topic.

        Trump may or may not win. (I’m certain he won’t, for many reasons.) But the recent bombing in NY/NJ merely highlight Trump’s well-known shortcomings. It won’t change minds, because it shows nothing new about him. That article was classic echo-chamber stuff.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s