Refusing to Admit the Obvious

Ofc. Hartnett is attacked at 60th and Spruce streets.

By this point, most people have probably already heard about the Philadelphia cop who was brutally shot by a man on Thursday night inside his police vehicle. The police officer, Jesse Hartnett, who returned fire and helped end the attack, was taken to Penn Presbyterian Medical Center. Thankfully, he is expected to recover.

 The incident occurred at 60th St. and Spruce St. in West Philly – roughly twenty blocks away from Penn’s campus.

 Later, it was revealed that the shooter, Edward Archer, pledged allegiance to ISIS and was motivated by Islam to carry out the attack. Archer claimed to have committed the attacks “in the name of Islam” and specifically targeted a police officer because officers enforce laws “contrary to the Quran.”

 However, the mayor of Philadelphia, Jim Kenney, later claimed that the shooting had “nothing to do with any faith.” His statement and subsequent defense of Islam refused to acknowledge any connection of the shooting with the religion – even though the attacker himself said he was doing it in the name of the Islamic faith.

 Just who are we supposed to believe about the motives of the attack: the Philadelphia mayor, who did not commit the attack, or Edward Archer, the attacker? Who is more likely to know the motives of the attacker – the attacker himself, or a third party who was not present and has a political agenda? For leftists, there is nothing possible – no action and no statement – that could convincingly suggest that the attacker was motivated by Islam.

 There is not much hope for us as a nation if we cannot receive facts as facts, for fear of offending a group of people.

 Another leftist narrative that explodes with this story is the fact that the gun used was an illegal weapon.

 Amid President Barack Obama’s desperate cries for gun control, does anyone really believe that tighter background checks or stricter gun laws would have prevented this from happening? Indeed, if someone is willing to assassinate a police officer, then why would he be willing to obey gun laws?

 What saved the police officer’s life was the fact that the officer was armed and was able to return fire to make Archer run for his life. If he were not armed, the story would have had a much more tragic ending.

 This story may have also gone very differently if the assault had happened in a gun-free zone. “Gun-free” zones – which include Penn’s campus – may as well be called “sitting-duck” zones, since the only people who abide by the “gun-free” rule are those who are not violent criminals – and murderers are violent criminals.

 Refusing to call radical Islamic terrorism what it is and believing “gun control” actually controls guns are both examples of how facts simply do not matter to many people.

One thought on “Refusing to Admit the Obvious

  1. Amazing how blind the liberal left is to a clear and present danger constitute by Islamic radicals. Islam may be a religion of “peace” but why do we ignore the fact that its tenets seem to lead to so much more extreme action????

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s