Open Left - Sun Myung Moon

Down for the count: The real fight for 2012

Karl Frisch — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:08:43 GMT

The fight for 2012 is here. Beltway media insiders rejoice!

Who's it going to be? Spunky Sarah? Moneyed Mitt? Holy Huckabee? Some dark-horse candidate flying under the radar? One thing is for sure: While the media clamors for every tiny detail in the looming battle for the Republican presidential nomination, the real fight for 2012 is taking place right before their very eyes.
Conventional-wisdom channelers in Washington, wittingly or not, have already been put to use by conservatives so determined to win that few facts remain untwisted. The fight over the 2010 census, which will ultimately dictate how congressional districts are drawn in 2012 and potentially influence party control of Congress for years to come, has already started.

We've seen the battle lines drawn in recent weeks, most notably with Sen. Judd Gregg's decision to step down as President Obama's nominee for Commerce secretary. Despite Gregg's statements to the contrary, many media reports have continued to suggest the New Hampshire Republican's decision to withdraw his nomination was based primarily on purported White House plans to be more deeply involved in next year's census.

Though Gregg has said the census was "not a major issue" in his decision to step aside, conservatives in the media have trumped up the controversy to hype misleading and, at times, outright false talking points designed to poison the well of public opinion surrounding the decennial census.

So, did the White House take the census out of the Commerce Department in a maddening display of partisan politics? If you watch cable news programs like MSNBC's Morning Joe, you'd be inclined to think so. Host Joe Scarborough recently said on the show: "[T]his is the rawest of raw politics, where you're going to take the census out of the Commerce Department, where as you said, they're professionals who have done this forever, and bring it inside the White House."

For all of his self-righteous indignation, Scarborough couldn't be more wrong.

In fact, while the White House has reportedly assured progressives that it will be directly involved in the census, it has repeatedly denied right-wing claims that the Commerce secretary will no longer oversee the Census Bureau. Earlier this month, spokesman Ben LaBolt stated that the administration intends to "return" to the "historical precedent for the director of the Census, who works for the commerce secretary and the president, to work closely with White House senior management." Following continued right-wing fury over the White House's census strategy, LaBolt later said "[t]his administration has not proposed removing the census from the Department of Commerce and the same congressional committees that had oversight during the previous administration will retain that authority."

This faux controversy -- sparked by the right-wing-fueled false notion that the Obama administration planned to take control of the census away from the Commerce Department, resting it entirely within the White House -- is far from the only front in this fight.

Back in 1997, as things were beginning to heat up for the 2000 census, conservatives were hell-bent on prohibiting the Clinton administration from using statistical sampling to count those who slipped through the cracks during the mail and door-to-door count of Americans. True to form, this line of attack is making a return.

Echoing right-wing science-haters, supposed MSNBC liberal Chris Matthews recently described the statistical sampling method as the "loosey-goosey census approach."

"Loosey-goosey," or more accurate?

In the years leading up to the last census, a host of scientific associations came out in support of statistical sampling. The Center for Science, Technology and Congress at the American Association for the Advancement of Science stated that "statistical sampling is widely regarded by the science community as an effective and accurate tool" while the American Statistical Association (ASA) argued that "statistically designed sampling" is "a valid, important, and generally accepted scientific method for gaining accurate knowledge about widely dispersed human populations" and that "properly designed sampling is often a better and more accurate method of gaining such knowledge than an inevitably incomplete survey of all members of such a population." The ASA further noted in its brief, "There are no sound scientific grounds for rejecting all use of statistical sampling in the 2000 census."

Confront conservatives with sound scientific opinion such as this, and, after their heads stop spinning, they'll likely offer up the canard that the Supreme Court has ruled that statistical sampling for the apportionment of congressional districts is unconstitutional.

The Rev. Sun Myung Moon's notoriously conservative Washington Times did just that in reporting that "[m]inority groups, quietly encouraged by Democrats, led a charge in 2000 to challenge the census, urging that statistical sampling and computer models -- not the head-count 'actual enumeration' mandated by the Constitution -- should be employed. That despite a 1999 Supreme Court ruling that sampling could not be used to apportion congressional seats."

Those darned activist judges! Or is it the newspapers?

Let's get something straight. In the case so often cited by the right, Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives, the Supreme Court did not consider nor did they decide whether the Constitution barred the use of sampling in congressional apportionment. The Supreme Court actually said that a congressional statute barred such sampling and explicitly said it was not deciding the constitutional issue. So, if Congress were to change said statute, statistical sampling could very well become a viable option.

Fights with such high political stakes often end up in the mud of spin and conjecture. In the weeks and months ahead, we're likely see more scientific, legalistic, and otherwise baseless wrangling from the right. After all, their ability to regain a congressional majority may hang in the balance. That is why the media's role of informing the public debate with facts and sound reason is so important.

Thus far, however, their record to that end has been spotty at best.

Karl Frisch is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog, research, and information center in Washington, D.C. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook and Digg or sign-up to receive his columns by email.

Shadow Elites And Religion--Part 2: Sun Myung Moon

Paul Rosenberg — Sun, 11 May 2008 18:01:38 GMT

Part 1 here.

In 1995, Jerry Falwell was on the brink of financial ruin, $73 million in debt, when he was saved by the Korean cult leader Sun Myung Moon. The transaction was hidden from sight, as Moon and Falwell used a pair of Virginia businessmen as cut-outs.

Moon has been a major player on the right since at least 1982, when he established the Washington Times, which he has subsidized to the tune of $3 billion over the years, according to investigative journalist Robert Parry, who was the leading journalist uncovering the Iran/Contra affair in the 1980s, and who has an extensive series on Moon at his website, Consortiumnews.com.

Until the emergence of Fox News in the late 1990s, the Washington Timeswas unquestionably the leading national news/propaganda organ of the right, and thus none of the movement higher-ups questioned him or his organization. (Even today, it remains a vital hub of the rightwing noise machine.) But Moon's theology and practices were so clearly heretical that appearances required significantly soft-peddling his enduring role and influence. It's impossible to fully grasp the hypocrisy and projection involved in rightwing politics without a consideration of the role of Sun Myung Moon.

For example, Moon claims to be the Second Coming--but he also claims to be better than Jesus, saying that Jesus failed in his mission, because he didn't procreat. Moon, in contrast, has been married three times, had various affairs, and numerous children. He has never disclosed where his money comes from, but Parry cites substantial evidence that much of it comes from underworld figures in Asia and Latin America. He served 18 months for filing false tax returns and conspiracy in the early 1980s.

It's very clear that his organization functions as an authoritarian cult, and Moon is deeply hostile to the United States. He also has clearly visible ties to Bush Sr. So, naturally--based on the principle I'm writing about here-- the money he funnelled to Falwell helped Falwell to project all these negatives onto a shadow liberal elite. And so he did, devoting enormous amounts of attention to peddling The Clinton Chronicles, a pseudo-documentary film that attempted to paint President Clinton as the mastermind of a vast criminal enterprise.

Falwell not only peddled the film on his TV program, he appeared in it, and later admitted he had no idea if any of it was true. Apparently, the commandment against bearing false witness didn't make it into Falwell's Bible.

This is the flip side of the manufactured hate-fest directed at Jeremiah Wright. Figures like Moon and Falwell break every Commandment in the Book, but are regarded as revered pillars of the conservative establishment. The more they sin, the more they have to savagely attack someone else. On the flip, we'll look at just a few of the things Sun Mung Moon has done that no liberal could possibly get away with.
The Second Coming

The Wikipedia article on Moon begins thus:

Sun Myung Moon (born January 6, 1920) is the leader of the Unification Church, which he officially founded on May 1, 1954 in Seoul, South Korea. Moon is also the founder and leader of the global Unification Movement which owns, operates or subsidizes many organizations involved in political, cultural, mass-media, and other activities. One of the best known is the Washington Times newspaper, founded in 1982.[1]
Moon has said he is the Second Coming of Christ, the "Savior", "returning Lord", and "True Parent". He teaches that all people should become perfected like Jesus and like himself, and that as such he "appears in the world as the substantial body of God Himself." He is well-known for holding Blessing ceremonies, which are often called "mass weddings". [2][3]
Moon has been among the most controversial modern religious leaders. He and his followers have been widely criticized, both for their religious beliefs and for their social and political activism. [4]

Robert Parry elaborates a bit on those religious beliefs ("Dark Side of Rev. Moon: Buying the Right"):

Moon asserts that Satan corrupted mankind by sexually seducing Eve in the Garden of Eden and that only through sexual purification can mankind be saved. In line with that doctrine, Moon says Jesus failed in his mission to save mankind because he did not procreate.

Moon sees himself as a second messiah who will not make the same mistake. He has engaged in sex with a variety of women over the decades. The total number of his offspring is a point of debate inside the Unification Church.

A former young leader in the church, John Stacey, goes even further, Parry wrote in another installment of his series on Moon:

Moon's criticism of Jesus also unsettled Stacey. "In the church, it's very anti-Jesus," Stacey said. "Jesus failed miserably. He died a lonely death. Reverend Moon is the hero that comes and saves pathetic Jesus. Reverend Moon is better than God. ... That's why I left the Moonies. Because it started to feel like idolatry. He's promoting idolatry."

Think of how much the right hates George Soros. Most of the money Soros gives away does not go to anything partisan, but say that it did. And then say that Soros claimed to be the Second Coming of Christ. Say he claimed to be better than Jesus. Do you think maybe people would, I duno, maybe talk about it? But how often do you ever hear anyone complain about Moon? Interesting, no? Well, that's the power of projection at work.

Please note, I'm not arguing that there's a direct link here. It's not that rightwingers look at Moon, freak out, go looking for some liberal to blame instead, and fix on George Soros. Rather, there is a deeply ingrained set of orientations, primarily associated with rightwing authoritarianism (RWA), which predisposes people to trust those they perceive as established authorities, and to demonize those seen as social outgroups. Shadow elites are manufactured out of this raw material. Their sinister, unseen machinations are what makes the social outgroups so dangerous.

For those not familiar with it, RWA is defined thus:

Right-wing authoritarianism is defined as the co-existence of three attitudinal clusters in a person:
1. Authoritarian submission -- a high degree of submission to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.
2. Authoritarian aggression -- a general aggressiveness, directed against various persons, that is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities.
3. Conventionalism -- a high degree of adherence to the social conventions that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities. (Source: Altemeyer, 1996, Chapter 1)

And it's been empirically found to have the following correlations:

1: Faulty reasoning -- RWAs are more likely to:
* Make many incorrect inferences from evidence.
* Hold contradictory ideas that result from a cognitive attribute known as compartmentalized thinking.
* Uncritically accept that many problems are 'our most serious problem.'
* Uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs.
* Uncritically trust people who tell them what they want to hear.
* Use many double standards in their thinking and judgments.
2: Hostility Toward Outgroups -- RWAs are more likely to:
* Weaken constitutional guarantees of liberty such as a Bill of Rights.
* Severely punish 'common' criminals in a role-playing situation.
* Admit they obtain personal pleasure from punishing such people.
* Be prejudiced and hostile against racial, ethnic, nationalistic, sexual, and linguistic minorities.
* Volunteer to help the government persecute almost anyone.
* Be mean-spirited toward those who have made mistakes and suffered.
3: Perverse Character Attributes -- RWAs are more likely to:
* Be dogmatic.
* Be zealots.
* Be hypocrites.
* Be absolutists
* Be bullies when they have power over others.
* Help cause and inflame intergroup conflict.
* Seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive in situations requiring cooperation.
4: Blindness To One's Own Failings And To The Failings Of Authority Figures Whom They Respect-- RWAs are more likely to:
* Believe they have no personal failings.
* Avoid learning about their personal failings.
* Be highly self-righteous.
* Use religion to erase guilt over their acts and to maintain their self-righteousness.

That does happen in some cases, I'm sure. can't prove any direct link, it's completely compatible with the way projection works that Soros is subject to all manner of unfair, hyperbolic attacks in part because of the corruption, degeneracy and almost limitless moral arrogance of similarly situated funders on the right--including, but not limited to Moon. Of course, it doesn't hurt that he's Jewish. That's all good for getting the hatemongers blood boiling. But there's millions of Jews in the world, and not that many people who claim to be the Second Coming.

The Many Loves of Sun Yung Moon

Wikipedia again:

Marriages and children
In November 1943 Moon married Sun Kil Choi. Their son, Sung Jin Moon, was born in 1946. They divorced in 1953 soon after Moon's release from prison in North Korea. Choi and Sung Jin Moon are now both members of the Unification Church. Choi has remarried. [6]
Technically, Moon was still married to his first wife when he began a relationship with his second (common law) wife Myung Hee Kim, who gave birth to a son named Hee Jin Moon (who was killed in a train accident). The church does not regard this as infidelity, but rather part of God's "providential" plan.[7]
Moon married his third wife, Hak Ja Han,[8] on April 11, 1960, soon after she turned 17 years old, in a ceremony called the "Holy Marriage." Han, called "Mother" or "True Mother" by followers, and her husband together are referred to as the "True Parents" by members of the Unification Church.
Hak Ja Han gave birth to 14 children; her second daughter died in infancy. The family is known in the church as the "True Family" and the children as the "True Children." Shortly after their marriage they presided over a Blessing Ceremony for 36 couples, the first of many such ceremonies.
Nansook Hong, ex-wife of Hyo Jin Moon, Sun Myung Moon's eldest son, said in her 1998 book In the Shadow of the Moons: My Life in the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Family, that both Sun Myung Moon and Hak Ja Han told her about Moon's extramarital affairs (which she said he called "providential affairs"), including one which resulted in the birth of a boy raised by a church leader, named by Sun Myung Moon's daughter Un Jin Moon on the news show 60 Minutes.[9]

Robert Parry elaborates a bit on those religious beliefs ("Dark Side of Rev. Moon: Buying the Right"):

Moon asserts that Satan corrupted mankind by sexually seducing Eve in the Garden of Eden and that only through sexual purification can mankind be saved. In line with that doctrine, Moon says Jesus failed in his mission to save mankind because he did not procreate.

Parry adds more to this, however. Continuing the passage quoted in the previous section:

Moon says Jesus failed in his mission to save mankind because he did not procreate.
Moon sees himself as a second messiah who will not make the same mistake. He has engaged in sex with a variety of women over the decades. The total number of his offspring is a point of debate inside the Unification Church.

Anti-American

In "Dark Side of Rev. Moon: Hooking George Bush", Robert Parry wrote:

Moon's jingle of deep-pocket cash also has caused conservatives to turn a deaf ear toward Moon's recent anti-American diatribes. With growing virulence, Moon has denounced the United States and its democratic principles, often referring to America as "Satanic." But these statements have gone virtually unreported, even though the texts of his sermons are carried on the Internet and their timing has coincided with Bush's warm endorsements of Moon.
"America has become the kingdom of individualism, and its people are individualists," Moon preached in Tarrytown, N.Y., on March 5, 1995. "You must realize that America has become the kingdom of Satan."
In similar remarks to followers on Aug. 4, 1996, Moon vowed that the church's eventual dominance over the United States would be followed by the liquidation of American individualism. "Americans who continue to maintain their privacy and extreme individualism are foolish people," Moon declared. "The world will reject Americans who continue to be so foolish. Once you have this great power of love, which is big enough to swallow entire America, there may be some individuals who complain inside your stomach. However, they will be digested."
During the same sermon, Moon decried assertive American women. "American women have the tendency to consider that women are in the subject position," he said. "However, woman's shape is like that of a receptacle. The concave shape is a receiving shape. Whereas, the convex shape symbolizes giving. ... Since man contains the seed of life, he should plant it in the deepest place.
"Does woman contain the seed of life? ["No."] Absolutely not. Then if you desire to receive the seed of life, you have to become an absolute object. In order to qualify as an absolute object, you need to demonstrate absolute faith, love and obedience to your subject. Absolute obedience means that you have to negate yourself 100 percent."

Parry goes on to report on a former disciple who was shaken by a Moon diatribe against America, in which Moon said, "America is so Satanic that even hamburgers should be considered evil, because they come from America'."

The disciple was shocked: "Hamburgers! My father was a butcher, so that bothered me. ... I started feeling that I was betraying my country."

So, the House GOP voting against motherhood last week. The pieces are falling into place...

Drug Crazy

Remember what I said above about George Soros and Sun Myung Moon? Well, it was sort of set-up:

On August 30, 2004, Kevin Drum wrote:

"I'M SAYING WE DON'T KNOW"....Josh Marshall links today to the latest smear from House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Lloyd Grove reports:
"You know, I don't know where George Soros gets his money. I don't know where -- if it comes overseas or from drug groups or where it comes from," Hastert mused. An astonished Chris Wallace asked: "Excuse me?" The Speaker went on: "Well, that's what he's been for a number years -- George Soros has been for legalizing drugs in this country. So, I mean, he's got a lot of ancillary interests out there." Wallace: "You think he may be getting money from the drug cartel?" Hastert: "I'm saying I don't know where groups - could be people who support this type of thing. I'm saying we don't know."
And I think maybe George Bush got tossed out of the National Guard because he crashed a plane while he was high on coke and then spent the next five months in Alabama in a rehab center. I mean, we just don't know, do we?
For the record, I'd like to note that Hastert is not an overweight filmmaker or an anonymous blogger. He's the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the third highest ranking Republican official in the country. This is what the leadership of the Republican party has become.

Well, you know we'd never hear the end of it if Nancy Pelosi were to act like that. But I bet you also know where I'm going next. Yup! That little old drug-dealing cult leader:

Mysterious Republican Money
By Robert Parry
September 7, 2004
If House Speaker Dennis Hastert were really concerned about drug profits being laundered into the U.S. political process, he would not be sliming billionaire financier George Soros with that suspicion. Hastert would be looking at a principal conservative funder: South Korean theocrat Sun Myung Moon.
While Hastert was unable to cite a shred of evidence that the liberal Soros is funneling illicit money, there is a substantial body of evidence that Moon has long commanded a criminal enterprise with close ties to Asian and South American drug lords. The evidence includes first-hand accounts of money laundering disclosed by Moon confidantes and even family members. Besides those more recent accounts, Moon was convicted of tax fraud based on evidence developed in the late 1970s about his money-laundering activities.
Since serving his tax-evasion sentence in the early 1980s, however, Moon appears to have bought himself protection by spreading hundreds of millions of dollars around conservative causes and through generous speaking fee payments to Republican leaders, including former President George H.W. Bush.
Moon himself has boasted that he spent $1 billion on the right-wing Washington Times in its first decade alone. The newspaper, which started in 1982, continues to lose Moon an estimated $50 million a year but remains a valuable propaganda organ for the Republican Party.
How Moon has managed to cover the vast losses of his media empire and pay for lavish conservative conferences has been one of the most enduring mysteries of Washington, but curiously one of the least investigated - at least since the Reagan-Bush era.

Parry goes on to describe how Moon is connected with the Korean CIA, rightwing Japanese WWII war criminals Yoshio Kodama and Ryoichi Sasakawa, who "grew rich from their association with the yakuza, an organized crime syndicate that profited off drug smuggling, gambling and prostitution in Japan and Korea," and an assortment of different rightwing regimes in Latin America during the 1980s, including the notorious Cocaine Coup government of Bolivia. This also, inevitable, involved connections to the Nicaraguan Contras cocaine dealing.

If George Soros were to get anywhere near even a fraction of this, we'd never hear the end of it. But Moon? I'll bet that at least half the people reading this have never even heard anything about Moon's involvement in drugs and underworld finance. That's precisely how the projection process works in the fantasy construction of shadow elites.

But there's more, you see. Parry also describes how a much younger Senator John Kerry, still fired by moral passion at the time, launched an investigation into contra drug trafficking, and thus earned the ire of Moon's Washington Times:

Kerry's Probe
When Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts conducted a Senate probe and uncovered additional evidence of contra drug trafficking, The Washington Times denounced him, too. The newspaper first published articles depicting Kerry's probe as a wasteful political witch hunt. "Kerry's anti-contra efforts extensive, expensive, in vain," announced the headline of one Times article.
But when Kerry exposed more contra wrongdoing, The Washington Times shifted tactics. In 1987 in front-page articles, it began accusing Kerry's staff of obstructing justice because their investigation was supposedly interfering with Reagan-Bush administration efforts to get at the truth. "Kerry staffers damaged FBI probe," said one Times article that opened with the assertion: "Congressional investigators for Sen. John Kerry severely damaged a federal drug investigation last summer by interfering with a witness while pursuing allegations of drug smuggling by the Nicaraguan resistance, federal law enforcement officials said."
Despite the attacks from The Washington Times and pressure from the Reagan-Bush administration to back off, Kerry's contra-drug investigation eventually concluded that a number of contra units - both in Costa Rica and Honduras - were implicated in the cocaine trade.
"It is clear that individuals who provided support for the contras were involved in drug trafficking, the supply network of the contras was used by drug trafficking organizations, and elements of the contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assistance from drug traffickers," Kerry's investigation stated in a report issued April 13, 1989. "In each case, one or another agency of the U.S. government had information regarding the involvement either while it was occurring or immediately thereafter."

This is only the tip of the iceberg, however, as Parry goes on to note:

The available evidence now shows that there was much more to the contra drug issue than either the Reagan-Bush administration or Moon's organization wanted the American people to know in the 1980s. The evidence - assembled over the years by inspectors general at the CIA, the Justice Department and other federal agencies - indicates that Bolivia's Cocaine Coup government was only the first in a line of drug enterprises that tried to squeeze under the protective umbrella of Ronald Reagan's favorite covert operation, the contra war.
Other cocaine smugglers soon followed, cozying up to the contras and sharing some of the profits as a way to minimize investigative interest by the Reagan-Bush law enforcement agencies. The contra-connected smugglers included the Medellin cartel, the Panamanian government of Manuel Noriega, the Honduran military, the Honduran-Mexican smuggling ring of Ramon Matta Ballesteros, and the Miami-based anti-Castro Cubans with their connections to Mafia operations throughout the United States.

The official story at the time was that "we" were fighting the "communists" in Central America. But as Parry shows, the reality was "something completely different," as the Pythons would say. In fact, the Nicaraguan Sandinistas were not aligned with the Soviet Union. The Nicaraguan Communist Party was part of the opposition, and the Sandinistas only turned to the Soviets for aid after the US had twisted the arms of all the European governments that the Sandinistas had approached first. The official story recognizes none of these basic facts. And of course it regards any talk of drugs as a "conspiracy theory," even though it's been confirmed by the CIA's own inspector general.

That's just how vital a role projection plays in the maintenance of the power of conservative elites.

And right in the middle of it all, a virulently anti-American Korean cult leader who claims to be better than Jesus.

And they want to get us all in a tizzy over Jeremiah Wright?