I am writing this untimely letter in response to one such letter from Mr. Eric Chasdan in the July 28 edition of the Roslyn Times. I was preoccupied with other matters.
Mr. Chasdan’s letter was a supposed retort of my previous letters supporting the formation of a commission to investigate voting fraud.
I cited more than half a dozen reasons why I thought such a commission was necessary. They are listed below.
Lois Lerner and the IRS targeted the Tea Party organizations.
A Judicial Watch FOIA request.
A website that showing 24 instances where personal identification is demanded.
California gave 605,000 driver’s licenses to undocumented applicants.
The Pew organization article estimating that there were 24 million faulty registrations throughout the country.
The now defunct ACORN organization which lost its funding due to illegally registering voters.
Descriptions of several James O’Keefe videos.
A Judicial Watch public meeting to discuss the concerns over voter fraud.
While I could have cited more, I thought that was sufficient for a letter to the editor.
I also stated that I resented the fact that my vote was being disenfranchised by illegal voters.
Mr. Chasdan responded with a nasty letter.
Not that I have anything against that, since I can be rather nasty and acerbic myself.
So here is my critique.
Mr. Chasdan starts off by saying “massive in person voter fraud… “.
Who said all voter fraud was in person? The commission is investigating all voter fraud, not just in person voter fraud. I was involved in the Senate Campaign in Minnesota when Norm Coleman was challenged by Al Franken.
Franken won a recount under dubious circumstances highlighted when absentee ballots were “found” in the trunk of a car.
It is also possible to rig voting machines. This “in person” comment sounds suspiciously evasive to me.
Mr. Chasdan then continues with comments like “hysterical alt-right myth, and” eliminating legitimate voting rights.”
He describes me as a “documented alt-right” hysteric.”
I am accused of “regurgitating discredited alt-right lies.”
My letters were called a “screed.” He continues to describe me as cynical and crude and that I should feel shame.
My reaction to this rubbish is from several points.
Mr. Chasdan comments are nothing but ad hominem attacks on me personally.
With one exception, which I will get to in a minute, he does not bother to mention, let alone counter, any of my listed concerns.
Mr. Chasdan’s letter is as substantive as cotton candy. It is all emotion driven with no objective facts.
Ironically, he calls me a hysteric when the tone of his letter is more hysterical than mine.
Another point concerns what I call the Port Washington cherry picking virus.
Historically ports were the venues of trade. They were also a venue for importing disease.
The Black plague in Europe emanated from North Africa and arrived via Italian ports.
Some such vessel must have entered Port Washington Harbor and deposited a virus.
I noticed it has afflicted several writers from that town.
Of all my concerns, Mr. Chasdan cherry picks only one, that regarding James O’Keefe.
He describes O’Keefe as a “convicted…fraudster,” mistakenly identifying him as convicted of a felony rather than an misdemeanor.
I am not an attorney. I am astonished by that remark.
Is calling someone, in writing, in a public forum, a convicted felon, when they were never actually convicted of a felony, a legally actionable offense?
Mr. Cashdan might want to reconsider the adjectives he uses.
To my understanding, James O’Keefe settled a civil case for “invasion of privacy.”
He also pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of entering a federal building under false pretenses. It is important to note that both those incidents have nothing to do with the veracity of his videos. His videos have never been debunked and were never shown to be fraudulent.
If Mr. Chasdan had a brain case with two working neurons and a synapse (tsk, tsk, nasty, nasty. See, I can do it too) he would understand that O’Keefe is loathed because he is so effective.
Why was Alan Shulkin fired from his position on the New York City Board of Elections after the video was made public?
Would not the overwhelming resources of George Soros’ Media Matters, The Clinton Foundation, and the Democratic National Committee have targeted and shut down such “fraudulent” documentations?
The reason they have not done so is obvious.
Were O’Keefe to be taken to court, the videos would become public record and would receive much wider circulation and recognition.
Therefore, the decision has been made to keep quiet and use left-wing publications like Salon and The New Yorker as a proxy to devalue O’Keefe and his work.
Being a dentist, I think I hit a nerve with my letters since it provoked two responses.
Remember, all I supported was an investigation, not a prosecution.
Mr. Chasdan lamented the fact that my letter took half a page. Maybe that was because I actually had something to say.
Dr. Wayne Roth