If attacker invokes Islam, it's relevant

At last week's press conference following the attempted murder of Officer Jesse Hartnett, Police Commissioner Richard Ross discussed the motive for the attack. Under police questioning, suspect Edward Archer is reported to have said, "I follow Allah. I pledge my allegiance to the Islamic State and that's why I did what I did." Ross further explained that Archer "believed that the police defend laws that are contrary to the teachings of the Quran."

It was also disclosed that Archer, described by his imam as a devout Muslim, had traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2011 and Egypt in 2012.

So, taking all of the foregoing at face value, this murderous assault is one more act of jihadi mayhem, right?

Not so fast.

Despite Archer's very clear declaration of an Islamic religious motive, Mayor Jim (May Peace Be Upon Him) Kenney was quick to deliver the obligatory politically correct Miranda warnings that follow all such outrages. Quoth Kenney-the-Most-Merciful to the assembled media, "In no way, shape, or form does anyone in this room believe that Islam or the teaching of Islam" had anything to do with the attack, adding that it "does not represent the religion in any way, shape, or form or any of its teachings."

Well, given Archer's reported invocation of Allah, the Quran, and ISIS, you sure could have fooled me. If this wasn't an act of jihad, what was it?

If, as Kenney pontificated, we must ignore the reports that Archer admitted being motivated by Islam, then why is the FBI now investigating possible links between the shooting of Hartnett and Muslim terrorist groups?

Of course, in making his stupefyingly ludicrous pronouncement, Kenney is not alone in the nonsense department. Every time a Muslim extremist commits some vile act — the massacre at Fort Hood, the Boston Marathon bombing, the murder of the Chattanooga military recruiters, the Christmas party slaughter in San Bernardino, and so on ad nauseum — our progressive betters always feel obligated to admonish us knuckle-dragging infidels against making the obvious connection between the carnage and Islam. And, quite frankly, it is wearing a bit thin.

Look, we get it. The majority of Muslims are peaceful and not plotting to wage holy war against us. Fine. But the intentions of the majority are utterly irrelevant to the true problem at hand, which is the presence in our midst of an extreme and bloodthirsty Muslim minority whose members have killed and maimed in the name of Islam and who continue to pose a clear and present danger of further religiously inspired mayhem.

Instead of repeatedly warning against jumping to any conclusions about Islam, how about our progressive leaders candidly address the challenges posed by the violent minority? Why, after all of these disgusting acts of domestic carnage, do they continue to admonish and try to shame and silence those who would speak aloud about the blatantly obvious Islamic motivations of these extremists?

These attackers claim to act in the name of Islam. Given the centuries of bloody warfare between Islam and Christianity, this is hardly a new or outlandish concept. But the acts of terror taking place in this country today are not being committed by Roman Catholics or Southern Baptists. The perpetrators are Muslims, and it is more than fair to proclaim this truth out loud without having to incur condemnation or censure by our politically correct government leaders and media.

George Parry is a former state and federal prosecutor practicing law in Philadelphia. LGParry@dpt-law.com