To The Daily Sun,
Last Tuesday Scott Cracraft enlightened all we readers with his innocent vs. willful ignorance column. Still though I think Scott missed a few touchstones given that all his criticism seems pointed at conservatives.
One of his very pointed criticism is directed at those who believed Obama was not born in the U.S., "in spite of all the evidence to the contrary." My problem with Scott's description here is that at the time the question arose there was no evidence to the contrary. It took over a year before Obama produced a birth certificate because all, that's all, his personal records were sealed and most still are. No cause for suspicion there, right Scott? So why did we have to wait all that time for some empirical data?
Speaking of empirical data, Scott maintains unequivocally that Obama is a Christian. Why because he says he is? What's empirical about that? I have no idea what is in Obama's heart or mind, but what I see is a man who gives every benefit of a doubt to Muslims but none or darn little to Christians. More of Scott's criticism is against Obama's former minister, for 20 years, Rev. Wright. If this guy is a Christian I'll eat my hat. I believe he is a white hater, a racist, anti American and spreads his poison liberally to his congregation.
Scott himself seems to me to have some kind of vendetta brewing against Christians too. Just recently Scott equated the Tea Party with evangelical Christians. He was wrong but so what if he had been right? Is it his belief that something is wrong with being an evangelical Christian? Is it any skin off his nose if someone is? Other then they just might not vote the way Scott does?
I'm glad Scott concluded that there is a big difference between misinformation and disinformation. Looks to me as most of the "birthers" were the victims of misinformation and can be forgiven, Scott's words. On the other hand, a very strong case can be made against Obama for his, "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. If you like your insurance company you can keep your insurance company." Also I'd note the post Benghazi attack where he told the world it was all because of some obscure YouTube video. Both these incidents — two outstanding ones among many — showed a willful intention of disinformation. Not forgivable in Scott's words. I would also note that a darn strong case can be made that Obama is a pathological liar himself.
Scott is entitled to his opinions but can't be regarded as non-partisan or even fair in his writing and descriptions. I'll not judge if he is guilty of disseminating misinformation or disinformation but I urge readers to judge for themselves.
- Category: Letters
- Hits: 290