By Onan Coca – Re-Bloggd From http://www.Constitution.com
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.“
Clinton says Trump’s rhetoric has “given aid and comfort” to terrorists. Phrase is definition of treason.
— Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) September 19, 2016
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.