For all the talk about how the protesters were "supporting ANSWER" why do my friends on the other side never worry too much about supporting the theocratic aims of Reverend Moon and the Unification Church? The latter owns an influential Washington daily newspaper, much beloved in all conservative circles, and has published and presumably paid ANSWER-bashers Glenn Reynolds, Jonah Goldberg, Andrew Sullivan, etc. Unlike the former, who have no political influence and presumably minimal financial backing, Moon is a billionaire who donates oodles to many other right wing causes and organizations. While anti-war protesters were accused of supporting Stalinism and coddling dictators simply for showing up to an anti-war protest sponsored in part by a pathetic shell of an organization, many of our favorite conservatives actually work for a powerful wealthy man who has used his vast financial resources to push his frightening political agenda.
Aside from believing he is the True Messiah, Moon desires institution of a single world theocratic government with himself as its leader. Under this Unification government, all marriages would be arranged by Moon and all other religions abolished. George Bush senior has given many generously paid speeches for Moon front groups around the world. Moon front groups include the World Anti-Communist League, which has actively been involved in mercenary operations supporting some nasty dictators.
Unlike ANSWER and the World Workers Party, Moon has money, Moon has media influence through UPI, the Washington Times, and other assorted publications, Moon has political influence with representatives in the Bush administration, and Moon has some of the most prominent conservative writers working for him.
And we're supposed to be concerned that anti-war demonstrators are supporting Stalinism simply by showing up?
I know the standard answer to this is that Moon has no hope of implementing his agenda so working for the Washington Times does nothing to further it. Fine - ditto ANSWER and the WWP.
UPDATE: David Neiwert chimes in with a bit more info. And I just wanted to make an additional point I had intended to more clearly - if billionaire influential Moon has no chance of implementing his agenda, and that's reason enough not to object to direct association with the Washington Times, then it's ridiculous to even waste half a second talking about anti-war demonstrators being associated with ANSWER.
[Does this mean that Instapundit is objectively pro-Moonie?-ed. Apparently so! ]
