Remember when Sen. Ted Cruz left his pup Snowflake home in Houston while embarking on a Cancun vacation? Yes, there was a security guard there to take care of the fur-baby, but that didn’t stop every major state-run media outlet from blasting the Senator for being a horrible “pet parent.”
And remember the Mitt Romney dog incident? If not, don’t worry—it has its own Wikipedia page. Back before you were required by law to wear a seatbelt, Romney jerry-rigged a wind-shielded contraption so that Seamus the Irish setter could accompany the family on a trip from Belmont back to Michigan. This story surfaced during his 2012 presidential run, and every outlet painted the former governor as inhumane and evil and unfit for public office.
During the GOP convention in Tampa that year, the New York Times ran two op-ed columns on the same day denouncing the future Utah senator/former Massachusetts governor.
Bad pet-parenting is fair game—if you’re attacking a Republican. But bad parenting? Don’t dare fall into that sad and predictable trap!
When a commentator draws a parallel between a Democrat mother’s systemic-bias rhetoric and her son’s acts of vandalism and assault towards law enforcement, he is “mean-spirited.”
When a columnist draws a parallel between a Democrat mother’s radical gender ideology and her son’s declaration of a new gender, he is “transphobic” and—my personal favorite—“ignorant.”
In fact, if you base your entire philosophy on the morality pushed by The Boston Globe, there’s no such thing as a bad parent! Why, that’s a “pernicious, cynical myth!”
Sure, Katherine Clark is not directly responsible for Jared Dowell’s bloody assault of a Boston Police officer or his association with Antifa. The privileged suburban white kid acts on his own volition; he has free will.
Rep. Katherine Clark is not being accused of holding anti-police sentiments because her son Jared—the name given to him by Boston Police and also used in the court documents—is a member of a violent left-wing anarchist gang. She’s being accused of holding anti-police sentiments because of her professional track record.
Clark has engaged in loud promotion of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021. The bill waters down qualified immunity, renders officers subject to re-education programs based in Critical Race Theory, and transfers power from officers to the Department of Justice. We’ve seen how fair and ethical the DOJ has been of late.
Rep. Katherine Clark wants to “transform our policing system.” She said it herself.
If we’re keeping score here, the only law enforcement unit to which Clark regularly gives positive shout-outs is the Capitol Police Force—the one protecting her.
By the way, Clark has also used her son in climate-change virtue-signaling. Echoing her fellow Congresswoman Katie Porter, Clark recently bemoaned the fact that her “middle child” had been having nightmares about global warming.
At the time, few knew that she and her lawyer husband had just moved from Melrose to Revere Beach, meaning that she now lives about 10 feet away from those “rising sea levels” that so terrify her child and are about to destroy humanity. But I digress…
Again, Clark cannot control the decisions made by her 23-year-old son.
But Rep. Clark is directly responsible for feeding into the delusion that her son may demand pundits and publications refer to him as her “daughter.” This is beyond a biology lesson. This is beyond a Radical Gender Theory debate. This is a public safety issue.
If federal legislation forces an officer to respond to a situation based on the preferred pronouns—and not the visible, tangible reality of the maniac threatening him physically—his de-escalation tactics may not be effective. For example, a woman—a real woman—might be pregnant. An officer would respond to a violent female anarchist accordingly.
A violent male anarchist, no matter how non-binary he thinks he is, has the strength of a male. If the officer does not respond to him as such, he will put himself and any innocent nearby civilians in harm’s way.
Further, if we are to pretend biological sex has no real-life implications and Jared—pardon me, “Riley”—is convicted of felony for “tagging” the iconic Parkman Bandstand on the Boston Common, the 23-year-old could be placed in a women’s prison. Do Democrats care enough about real incarcerated women to keep a violent lunatic away from them?
And finally, if we are to allow this precedent to stand, this fantasy where an alleged criminal may dictate what facts are reported honestly about him, meanwhile granting him the power to cut-and-paste his feelings into major national headlines, our press is beyond dishonesty. This is next-level corruption and deception of the public.
Sure, Katherine Clark isn’t guilty of the violence that took place in Boston over the weekend.
However, someday Clark will have to answer for pushing widespread deception that undermines first responders and places women—real women—in danger.