The level of hate among the left for all things President Trump is reaching a breaking point. They attack elders, they beat Marines, they try to encourage others to harm children, and now, one deranged and mentally imbalanced liberal ‘journalist’ for the Boston Globe is advocating… actually encouraging service personnel… to poison to the food of Trump officials.
Luke O’Neil wrote an opinion article on Wednesday calling for menial laborers—you know people who serve food—should “tamper” with food ordered by Kirstjen Nielson, the soon to be former head of the Department of Homeland Security.
After lamenting the fact that he missed his opportunity to put urine and blood in the food that Bill Kristol would eat, O’Neil urges others not to miss their chance.
In an insulting call to action, he wrote:
“As for the waiters out there, I’m not saying you should tamper with anyone’s food, as that could get you into trouble. You might lose your serving job,” he said, apparently in an effort to have deniability.
“But you’d be serving America. And you won’t have any regrets years later,” he concludes, leaving less-than-stable readers to interpret and act on this advice as they may.
News flash elitist: They are called servers, not waiters nowadays.
And although Americans should count on being told this was a ‘joke,’ this goes beyond humor.
O’Neil suggested that diseased blood and urine are funny? That making people ingest them is a joke?
He seems to have a serious personality disorder, which would account for the need to harm others combined with the need for public acclaim.
The Federalist reported:
O’Neil took to Twitter on Wednesday afternoon to clarify his stance for his 36,000 followers.
“People who carry out policies of ethnic cleansing or cheerlead for disastrous wars leading to tens of thousands suffering or dead should not expect to be able to show their faces in public anymore thank you for understanding this basic premise,” said O’Neil in a tweeted response to conservative pundit Caleb Hull’s criticism.
So, does that make it okay to deliberately infect someone with a disease?
After a flurry of criticism, late Wednesday the Globe appended an editor’s note to the top of the story that reads, “A version of this column as originally published did not meet Globe standards and has been changed. The Globe regrets the previous tone of the piece.”
The lead and other parts of the article have changed significantly, including the concluding paragraphs in which he suggested waiters should adulterate Nielsen’s food. The opening word “pissing” was also changed to “defiling.”
— Eddie Zipperer (@EddieZipperer) April 10, 2019
Here’s the original concluding paragraph that has now been dialed down:
O’Neil’s hypothetical defenders might argue that the First Amendment protects his right to express his objection to the administration’s policies and to Nielsen’s enforcement of those policies. And they would be 100 percent correct.
He most assuredly does have a right to express his opinion, and the Globe has the right—some would even say the responsibility—to print those objections.
Yet freedom of speech, of course, is not absolute. The quintessential example of unprotected speech involves yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.
That sort of speech is not protected because it endangers others. Other speech may be protected from government censure by the First Amendment, too, but that doesn’t mean everything the First Amendment protects is wise or praiseworthy.
O’Neil’s statement encouraging readers to serve America and avoid regret by tampering with a government official’s food is vile, and deserves public censure.
The Globe’s editors should never have published it. Clearly, it endangers Nielsen, who was verbally accosted in a restaurant last summer by protesters who disagreed with the Trump administration’s immigration policies.
Who knows what O’Neil might motivate someone to put in a government official’s food.
The concern with O’Neil’s piece goes beyond his arguable incitement to possible threats against a sitting governmental official. The article as a whole, sandwiched by the personal introductory anecdote and the ending word-of-advice, suggests that it is entirely appropriate—even laudable—to express your political opinions through violence.
Wednesday evening, O’Neil protected his tweets and publicly issued a non-apology apology for his commentary: “I would like to apologize for my commentary regarding the warden of the baby jail,” he tweeted.
In other words, he appears to be doubling down on encouraging people to harass and physically endanger people whose politics they disagree with.
The bottom line is that stable, mentally healthy people do not poison others’ food. Nor do they encourage others to do so in widely read op-eds.
Probably, he needs much more.