The growing terror concern among voters

In remarks to a Florida audience on Monday, following the bombings in New York and New Jersey over the weekend, Donald Trump chronicled the many radical Islamic terror attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11. He then called his opponent, Hillary Clinton, “weak and ineffective,” adding that if he’s elected, these problems will go away, “far greater than anybody would think.”

Whatever one thinks of Trump’s rhetoric, his is a voice of certainty at a time when a growing number of Americans appear fed up with a seemingly ineffective government, weak statements, and even weaker responses. Example: White House spokesman Josh Earnest said on CNN: “What I can tell you is that we are, when it comes to ISIL, we are in a fight, a narrative fight with them, a narrative battle.”

Are words the cause of so many American deaths from terrorists attacks and on battlefields in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Syria? Or did bombs and bullets take their lives, limbs, minds, and sense of well-being?

Many Americans believe their government cares more about the sensitivity of Muslims than it does for them. From releasing detainees from Guantanamo prison, some of whom have gone on to plot terrorist attacks against Americans, to the acceptance of thousands of refugees from Islamic countries where terrorism appears to be a major export, people are rightly concerned.

Adding to those concerns is this Associated Press story: “The U.S. government has mistakenly granted citizenship to at least 858 immigrants who had pending deportation orders from countries of concern to national security or with high rates of immigration fraud … according to an internal Homeland Security audit.”

Why? The Department of Homeland Security says the immigrants’ fingerprints were missing from government databases. And now CNN’s Jake Tapper reports that the actual number of people mistakenly granted citizenship is actually more than 1,800.

This is the same administration that promised “robust” vetting of all immigrants.

Many people are afraid to say what should be said for fear of being labeled an “Islamophobe.”

Srdja Trifkovic is not afraid. He is a Serbian-American writer on international and foreign affairs and editor of the “paleoconservative” magazine Chronicles.

In the September issue Trifkovic writes:

“The enemy is Islam, a supremacist ideology of permanent conflict and conquest, which is and has always been structurally unamenable to compromise with non-Islam. It has a highly developed legal, political, and moral doctrine, rooted in its core texts, which denies the legitimacy of any other belief system and form of social organization. Its exponents are state actors (most notably Saudi Arabia), groups with some state attributes (ISIS), decentralized terror networks (Al Qaeda), and self-starting ‘radicalized’ cells and individuals in most Western countries that have a sizable Muslim diaspora.”

All Muslims do not buy into these doctrines, but those who don’t are regarded as heretics by those who do. Don’t take my word for it. Do the research. The motives and goals of radical Islamists are in their writings, sermons, and media.

The motives and goals of radical Islamists are in their writings, sermons, and media.

The latest terrorists attacks, and the possibility of more to come before the election, can only benefit Donald Trump. His is a voice of certainty amid voices of timidity. Whether good or bad, that resonates with a lot of people who don’t enjoy life in that safety bubble protecting our elected officials.

Americans are tired of losing wars. This one they want to win.

And while voters have many justifiable concerns about Donald Trump, few doubt his resolve to defeat radical Islam. And given the repeated reminders of the threat it poses to America, that might be enough on Election Day.