dissecting jeremiah
by Sean Mallory
Published: April 1, 2008
For the past two weeks, Reverend Jeremiah Wright has been under attack by nearly every media outlet, predominantly conservative talk radio. Footage of his sermons, from over a year ago, has recently surfaced in an attempt to not only smear the Reverend, but also a longtime member of his congregation, Presidential candidate Barack Obama.
Obama has been attending Trinity United Church of Christ for twenty years, all the while listening to Reverend Wright’s comments made from the pulpit. The recently unveiled messages of Wright have led to him being called “Hateful”, “Racist”, and “Anti-Semitic” by the media.
I suppose that once the anti-Obama movement realized that their original tactic (claiming him to be a Muslim) didn’t work out the way they wanted it to, they decided to instead say, “Okay, he’s a Christian - but he’s a bad Christian.”
It’s easy to paint someone as un-American or racist when enough political correspondents, from enough network news programs, claim that person to be so. Eventually, the American people stop asking “Why?” and simply embed it into their own personal views so as not to be seen as un-American or racist themselves. However, if one were to look at the statements made by Reverend Jeremiah Wright from an objective perspective, with a little knowledge of US foreign policy and the English language, it would be clear to see that those statements are not hateful in any way. More importantly, those statements are in fact, true. In order to do this, we need to review Wright’s comments with an open mind.
Reverend Wright said, “Barrack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger.”
It was these comments that led to Wright being labeled a racist. To disprove this idea is relatively simple. One would need only an elementary knowledge of the American government.
A major reason that this election is so important to our nation’s history is that it could mark the first time America has ever had a black president or a female president. This means that all forty-three presidents have been white men. White men have also made up the majority of both the House and Senate since their respective inceptions. New York recently named its first black governor by default after Eliot Spitzer was linked to a prostitution ring being run out of Washington, D.C. Based on this common knowledge, it’s safe to say that Reverend Wright was not being racist when claiming that America is “controlled by rich white people.” He simply stated the truth in the form of common sense.
For the sake of time, I won’t touch on the other piece of this excerpt. I’ll simply hope that it is self-evident that Hillary Clinton has, in fact, never been called the n-word.
Reverend Wright went on to say, “We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki. We nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.”
For this, Wright caught even more flack. He was an easy canvas for the media to paint an upside-down American flag on. But again, Wright was… well, right.
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki led to a combined death toll somewhere between 170,000 and 220,000. When factoring in the long-term effects of the bombings, there is no telling how many Japanese civilians died as a result of the attacks.
According to official estimates in regards to the number of fatalities incurred during the September 11th attacks, the death toll reached 2,974. That number, while still atrocious, is less than 2% of the estimated casualties in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although these numbers certainly support Wright’s claims, the media has still managed to get the public to interpret these statements as false and un-American.
Moving on. Rev. Wright said, “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and Black South Africans and now we are indignant. Because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens coming home to roost.”
Again, we will simply look at the English language to judge these statements to be true or not. The word “terrorism” is defined as “any act of violence carried out with political and/or religious motive; usually as a means of coercion.” It is easy to see how the term “war on terror” is an oxymoron. An alternate title for the war could very well be “terror on terror.”
But has the United States been supporting terrorism? Well, if you combine the definition of the word with the actions of our government, the only answer is yes. The United States is the largest financial supporter of the Israeli Army in the world.
In 2002, Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington, said, “Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about 1.6 trillion dollars.” To put this into perspective, he added, “If divided by today’s population, that is more than 5,700 dollars per person.” That number has only risen in the past six years. According to IfAmericansKnew.com, the United States gave Israel approximately 6.8 million dollars a day during the 2007 fiscal year.
Recording the total number of casualties of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is impossible. Even estimating would be a shot in the dark. However, it is fair to say that hundreds of Palestinians are killed every year. These victims include men, women, and children. A recent report by the OCHAoPt, which was established by the United Nations, shows that approximately 1,290 Palestinians have been killed due to the conflict in the past three years. This number includes 222 children. Israel has suffered 86 deaths during that time, including 8 children. The report also stated that 6,297 Palestinians were injured (864 children), compared to Israel’s 1,183 (14 children).
Is “slaughtering” too strong a word? Is this not genocide? Is it possible to objectively come to that conclusion without being deemed anti-Semitic? Reverend Wright is speaking out against violence. This can only mean that he desires peace. Peace is not anti-Semitic.
Sean Hannity took the liberty of interpreting Wright’s “… chickens coming home to roost” comment on his ABC Radio program. He claimed that what Wright was saying was actually, “America deserved September eleventh.” I attempted to call in to speak with him about this, but was told that the show was booked and they were not taking any more callers. I wanted to speak with him man to man, Sean to Sean, but was not given the opportunity. I interpret it a little differently.
In order to understand my interpretation, Hannity would need only a brief history lesson (more of a refresher course).
We may have invaded Iraq five years ago, but were bombing them long before then. In 1991, “Operation Desert Storm” went underway. Iraq was hit with 88,000 tons of bombs. Electrical and water systems were strategically targeted, crippling the country for years to come and killing over 100,000 Iraqis.
We even provoked war between them and Iran, in which we financed both sides. When the eight-year war had ended, over one million Iranians and Iraqis had been killed.
In August of 1998, President Clinton gave orders to send 75 cruise missiles into rural areas of Afghanistan. The attack destroyed a factory that once produced over half of Sudan’s pharmaceutical supply.
Combine just these few examples with the Israeli Army financial support that we spoke of earlier. What you have is a foreign policy of interventionism. You have a government who refuses to keep Middle Eastern interests in mind. You have a government who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Arabs.
My interpretation is this. September 11th was a direct result of the American government’s own foreign policy. That does not mean that civilians deserved it. It means that the government should have seen it coming. It’s a concept that the CIA refers to as “blowback.” You cannot interfere with Middle Eastern affairs using brute force and expect your actions to have no consequences.
The last statement to cover is perhaps the most controversial. During one of Reverend Wright’s rants, he said, “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No. No. Not God bless America. God damn America.”
It is fairly well known, at this point, that members of the CIA, including Covert Specialist John Stockwell, have admitted that the CIA was (and is) involved with illegal drug trafficking from places like Costa Rica, Bolivia and Peru. In 1988, America’s most highly decorated Green Beret, Lieutenant Colonel Bo Gritz, claimed that the CIA has been dealing in heroine from Burma.
However, the government-sponsored drug trafficking has hardly made a blip on the media’s radar. They even refused to criticize Wright for making that statement. Or perhaps they just found it easier to attack the other half of the comment.
Hannity, along with Rush Limbaugh and others, have again misinterpreted the Reverend’s words. They consider the phrase “God damn America” to be pure blasphemy spewed from the pulpit. For this, we must look at the etymology of the phrase itself.
The word “damn” is used in the bible many times. It simply means, “to pronounce judgment upon or condemn.” There is a huge difference between using the phrase as one word and using it as two. The former is considered blasphemy by the church, while the latter is largely accepted considering context. This is because when you use the words “God” and “damn” as two separate words, you are simply creating 2/3 of a sentence. “God” being the noun, and “damn” being the verb.
The point Wright is trying to make with this statement is simply that America will be blessed if the Lord deems us deserving of such blessing. However, judging by the actions of the American government, we will be damned if we continue this course of action.
Barack Obama has since denounced all of these statements. He has allowed the corporate media to control his following. In my opinion, he has let down his supporters. He has become just another submissive candidate, held under the thumb of national media. The statements that his pastor made were easily defended and explained. However, Obama simply proved that he has no backbone, no willingness to stand up to the media.
John McCain recently picked up the endorsement of television evangelist, John Hagee. Hagee has said that he wants a war with Iran because it will “hasten Armageddon.” He also claimed that, “those who live by the Koran have a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews.” Is that not hate speech? Is that not racist? Evidently, not. It didn’t cause the media to so much as blink. McCain didn’t denounce Hagee. He actually used him as a tool of promotion. Even if your comments were accurate (which they are not), Mr. Hagee, you have a scriptural mandate to love your enemy.
The separation of church and state seems to mean nothing to conservative hosts, unless, of course, the words coming from inside the church interfere with their own fascist agendas.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
April 15th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Wow, I didn’t really know that anti-semtism still existed among american political thought. But your article just proves it does. And you call conservatives fascist? How can you do that, everything you just outlined is exactly how Hitler outlined his party before the “camps” got set up.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
One more thing! Your complex grammer explanation of “God **** America” isn’t at all accurate. Nice try though it sounded almost intelligent. For example if I say to you while shouting from a pulpit, God **** you. I am not saying it as an encouraged way for you to turn away from your evil immoral ways. I am saying it as a command or petition. The extent you have gone to defend a racist is amazing…good luck to you. Or should say God **** you.haha your so funny
April 17th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Being endorsed is a little different than your personal spiritual mentor.
May 4th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Perry. If you would like to debate the issue, I’d love to actually do that. But the fact that you had to resort to the same tactics that every uneducated political analyst does, makes me feel good about my article. Let me ask you something. Is Noam Chomsky anti-Semitic? Are Rabbis against Israel anti-Semitic? If you think so, you’re just a pathetic, uneducated scab who takes the easy way out in an argument that is obviously more complex than you can handle.
By the way, that party that was outlined by Hitler was also backed by Prescott Bush (our President’s grandfather). So yes, I call conservatives fascist.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Wow… “a pathetic, uneducated scab” - let’s not get too personal here.
But i love your article.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Some people will never think for themselves. I can’t even begin to explain how sick I am of mainsteam media and all of their minions. I love this article! Nice to see someone stomping on some toes for once. Thank you