[af_vet_1981]

Yes, I know what a non sequitur is. I don't see any here.

"I should think it's obvious that I'm responding to an obsession -- an obsession of contemporary culture, politics, the media, the arts. We have been getting 24/7 coverage of Jews, the Holocaust, and Israel for years now.

Sobran was an antisemite, as well as a religious hypocrite, but it was not because the New York Times was favorable to Israel or the Jews. Neither was it true, or because, "24/7 coverage of Jews, the Holocaust, and Israel for years now" which is an obviously hyperbolic falsehood. It was because Sobran was a rabid antisemite. He was also a religious Catholic revert/zealot (Sobran said once, "I won't be satisfied until the Church resumes burning for heresy" who married and divorced twice. One would think he should have guarded his tongue and pen in repentance. Learn from his errors before it is too late.

Sobran frequently used his columns to criticize Israel, the Holocaust and Zionism. In one column, Sobran wrote that The New York Times "really ought to change its name to Holocaust Update".[21] In a 1992 column, he complained of "a more or less official national obsession with a tiny, faraway socialist ethnocracy", meaning Israel. Sobran argued that the 9/11 attacks were a result of the United States government's policies in the Middle East. He claimed those policies are formed by the Jewish lobby.[2] In 2002, Sobran wrote, "My chief offense, it appears, has been to insist that the state of Israel has been a costly and treacherous ‘ally’ to the United States. As of last Sept. 11, I should think that is undeniable. But I have yet to receive a single apology for having been correct."[2] Sobran said he lacked the "scholarly competence" to be a Holocaust denier. He also claimed that the official number of Holocaust victims was inaccurate and that Nazi Germany was not intent on racial extermination.[22][independent source needed] He said his attitude was not anti-Semitism but "more like counter-Semitism".[23]

[Angelino97]

Sobran said once, "I won't be satisfied until the Church resumes burning for heresy"

I doubt he meant that literally. From Oscar Wilde, to H.L. Mencken, to Ann Coulter, pundits have long used hyperbole in a humorously provocative fashion.