Back in early November, one Matthew Zeidman of New Hyde Park responded to a letter I had written in which I attacked radical-leftist Karen Rubin’s “globalist” viewpoints, calling it a “thinly veiled anti-Semitic letter,” and challenging the editor of this newspaper to refrain from publishing letters using “dog whistle” phraseology.
In simple terms, what Zeidman is advocating is suppression of free speech.
This is what liberal leftists want — any viewpoint that runs counter to their worldview must be attacked and suppressed by the liberal “thought-police,” who will have you believe that they know better than you, and that we are un-evolved racists.
For the record, my criticisms of Rubin are limited solely to her radical-leftist viewpoints, not to her religion or ethnicity, neither of which I am interested in or aware of.
When Zeidman plays the race/religion card, he does so at his own peril — I will debate him anyplace/anytime. I simply will not allow him to call me or anyone else with whom he disagrees an anti-Semite.
Furthermore, Rubin has neither defended nor denied the accusations I have made against her, that she is, in fact, a globalist who believes in open borders.
Despite the fact that I find her political viewpoints repugnant, I will at least give her credit for not falling back on the tired old argument of anti-Semitism.
She is quite capable of making an argument without the use of that tactic; which is more than I can say for you, Mr. Zeidman.
Furthermore, I do not refer to you as “anti-Catholic” or “anti-Italian” simply because you disagree with me — you just see things differently. And I certainly don’t advocate for the kind of censorship that you are calling for.
And speaking of “dog-whistles”; let us not forget the time when Obama derisively referred to voters in Pennsylvania as only caring about “God and guns,” or when liberal Hal Sobel refers to Republicans as the “party of old white men.” So really, who is using the “dog-whistles” here? Just asking.