John Gorenfeld, who has done more than any other person I know of to expose the unbelievable activities of Rev. Sun Myung Moon, has a post at Talk2Action exposing the longstanding links between the Bush family and Moon. Bush the Elder has literally travelled all over the world, being paid millions of dollars, to speak on Moon's behalf and laud him as a statesman rather than as the evil, fascist cult leader that he is. Moon has built a staggering network of organizations and ingratiated himself into the conservative think tanks and foundations by throwing hundreds of millions of dollars around. Some of those organizations actually receive Federal funds under the faith-based initiatives program. He's also managed to get some of his followers into very high positions in government (one of them, Josette Shiner, is an undersecretary of State). Most astonishingly, he managed to have some 80 legislators and ambassadors take part in a ceremony in the Senate office building that crowned him the "King of Peace" - a US congressman actually placed a crown on his head! And all this while Moon gives millions to the madman dictator of North Korea as well. I cannot believe no major politician has made an issue out of this in the media. If this isn't a story worth covering, I don't know what is.
- Log in to post comments
I wonder if the Scientologists(tm) are feeling left out...
This one post, and your final remark, shows both the greatest strength and greatest weakness of the Internet. Before the net, there weren't people doing this sort of research and being heard by anyone. Now the research is there -- and if this information had been widely known, there is no doubt that Bush would have lost the Christianut vote -- and even the more sensible Christian vote -- and the 2004 election.
The trouble is that we are reaching a stage where we talk only to ourselves. The people who should be reading this don't read DISPATCHES or TALK2ACTION, they read WORLD NET DAILY. And nobody over here is going to write an article -- couched in their favorite catch-phrases -- to appear there.
We should be writing our pastors, priests, and evangelists, sending this and demanding they justify their support of Bush despite it -- but we are atheists (like me), agnostics, or, if Christians, the sort that has a liberal pastor that never DID support Bush.
At one time we could have counted on the newspapers to pick this up and spread the word to people who needed to hear it. But the Limbaugh-Coulter-Goldberg group (with, sadly, PLENTY of support from my end of the spectrum) have finally succeeded in doing what McCarthy and Nixon/Agnew dreamed of, convincing people that if they read or hear something in the "MSM" that they don't agree with, they should just dismiss it as biased, because they are all a bunch of evil, lying liberals (say the right) or all run by the evil, lying corporate bosses (say the left).
How can we (any 'we') start getting people talking across the barriers that the right, mostly, has built up. No, that's wrong. People will talk across the lines, creationists will come here to shout at us, some of us will go to the WND to yell at them.
But how to we teach people, once again to LISTEN across the barriers, to realize that, for example, a Lou Dobbs may have truly horrifying ideas about immigration, but he's RIGHT about electronic voting machines? For all I know, there are even things Coulter gets right.
Instead, we have people calling Colin Powell and John McCain traitors because they challenge Bush' policies.
Does anyone have any solutions? Because if we don't - and yes, i know I am risking an attack from the Hitler Zombie and the application of Godwin's Law by saying this -- we are going to have just the sort of conditioned populace, capable of hearing only what the 'right sources' say, that Goebbels dreamed of -- on both sides of the spectrum, which is even scarier.
I wonder if Bush paid for Wells' doctorate in a roundabout way by bringing in more funding? So we can blame both Bushes for supporting ID...
You make some good points and ask some good questions about polarization here, but then you give an example of your own polarized thought.
What, pray tell, are some of Dobbs horrifying ideas about "immigration"?
I am aware of his stance against illegal immigration but I have never heard him speak out against legal immigration at all. In fact I have heard him call for increasing the level of legal immigration.
Could it perhaps be that in your opinion merely being against illegal immigration is horrifying?
The constant use of the unspecified term "immigrant" in discussions about illegal immigration are a transparently Orwellian attempt (mostly by those on the left) to use language to try and frame the nature of the debate.
But while we are speaking of Dobbs someone aught to forward this stuff about the Moon/Bush connection onto his show. They might have the guts to talk about it. While I don't agree with everything Dobbs has to say he at least seems to be willing to go after both of the main political parties in this country and hold their feet to the fire.
Salon's Michelle Goldberg wrote about the Bush/Moon connection (along with many other things) in her excellent book, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. I recomment it highly if you are the type who doesn't get nightmares.
Salon did another good piece called "Bad Moon on the Rise." Not sure about the date or author, but I think it came out soon after the "King of Peace" incident.
If somebody referred to legal immigration as just "immigration", would they be performing the same nefarious act?
I would think not as there is no group (that I know of) seriously involved in the debate (a few dip-shits in sheets don't count) that is trying to blur the line between legal immigration into this country and the concept of immigration in general (I'm not even sure what that would mean).
There is on the other hand a screamingly obvious pattern of attempts to blur the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants coming from groups ("The Race" for example) advocating for illegal immigrants .