In 1984, Reverend Moon was incarcerated in the Federal Correctional Institute at Danbury, Connecticut, on trumped-up, heavily politicized tax evasion charges, thanks to a policy of religious oppression by the U.S. government (see chapter 16 for details).

On May 5, 1985, I went to the prison during visiting hours with Reverend Moon's wife, Mrs. Hak Ja Han Moon, as was my usual practice in those days. As the president of the Washington Times, it was almost my daily task to give a report on the U.S. and global political situation to Reverend Moon.

That day, I reported that the humanitarian assistance proposal by President Reagan to assist the Nicaraguan freedom fighters known as the Contras had been rejected by a large margin in the House of Representatives.

Intent on building a military fortress in Central America, the Soviet Union had poured billions of dollars' worth of military aid into Nicaragua, just as they had done in Cuba. The U.S. Congress, on the other hand, had voted down a proposal to supply the freedom fighters with food, clothing, and medical supplies worth a measly 814 million, even though the package excluded military aid. This reveals just how much influence liberals had at that time. In particular, the left-leaning tendencies of the Democrat-led Congress had developed to a dangerous level.

When Reverend Moon heard this report, his face flushed. Even while he was incarcerated, he thought about the Will of God day and night, and he was always racking his brains about how to block the expansion of communism. He grasped immediately the serious implications of this vote.

"If things continue on like this," he warned, "America will come to a bad end. If Congress can't help the Nicaraguan freedom fighters, then I'll do it. Even if the free people of the United States empty their pockets to the last penny, they have to help the Contras."

Reverend Moon continued, "We have to wake up the people, beginning with the members of Congress. Bo Hi, what are you doing there at the Washington Times? Isn't this situation just the kind I made the paper for? Aren't I sitting in prison now thanks to the work of the communists, for the simple fact that I have pledged my life to this fight? Bo Hi, aren't you even angry? Even from prison I'm fighting for the sake of this struggle. It's a fight I can't afford to lose, for the sake of God and humankind. What are you hanging around here for? I don't need to see you. Go and do God's work. Now get out!"

I was reduced to silent weeping before his aggrieved heart, his earnest and ardent fire for God's Will. As soon as he finished speaking, I stood up. "Father! Everything you say is just and true. I'll go. I'll show them [liberal congressmen] just what the Washington Times can do!"

Arnaud de Borcbgrave, editor in chief of the Washington Times (1985-1991).

As soon as I left Danbury prison, I stopped the car at a public phone to call the Washington Times, regretting that, of all days, it was Sunday. Fortunately, however, our editor in chief, Arnaud de Borchgrave (editor in chief 1985 -- 1991; at the time of this writing, editor-at-large of United Press International and senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies), was in his office.

I quickly and tersely conveyed to him Reverend Moon's passionate state of mind. De Borchgrave listened in silence. As soon as I finished, he replied. "If we go by standard practice in the American newspaper world, you can't collect money for anything, no matter how worthy the cause, because it impinges on your impartiality. If a newspaper collected donations for any cause, public trust in the paper would go downhill. However, I myself sympathize 100 percent with Reverend Moon's feelings and anger. We can't let Reverend Moon down, can we? Let me handle this, and I will make sure that Reverend Moon's worries are answered."

I replied in a voice thick with emotion, "Arnaud, at this very moment you are our most important freedom fighter. Thank you. Reverend Moon is fighting with all of his life strength even there from prison. The task we are faced with is not our individual problem. It's not society's problem, and it's not Reverend Moon's problem. What we are doing will influence the destiny of the nation and the world."

Once again he listened quietly, then he said sharply, "See what I can do! Please leave it to me!" and hung up the phone.

I didn't say another word. I knew very well what kind of man Arnaud de Borchgrave is.

First, he is a fierce anti-communist fighter. Second, as a media professional he is a genius. Third, he is a world-renowned individual responsible for obtaining many scoops during his thirty-something years as a senior editor and chief overseas correspondent for Newsweek. (He also co-authored, with Robert Moss, the best-seller Spike (1980), set in the world of international politics and information warfare, and Monimbo (1983). He is not the kind of man who works under orders from anyone, but once he decides to do something, the results are powerful.

There is another important thing. He holds Reverend Moon in very high regard.

When I was president of the Washington Times Corporation, I never directed de Borchgrave to publish any specific articles. He seemed to tacitly understand before the fact what both Reverend Moon and I intended for the newspaper. For this reason, I completely entrusted him with editorial authority. He joined the Washington Times despite all kinds of opposition from many quarters. He has a great faith in Reverend Moon. He praised highly Reverend Moon's spirit in seeking victory over communism and believed that if there was one person in the world who could stop communism in its tracks, it was Reverend Moon. If Arnaud de Borchgrave says "See what I can do!" you couldn't wish for anything more than that. Something good will definitely happen.

The next day, May 6, 1985, all of Washington was in an uproar over that morning's Times. On the front page was a special editorial, signed by the editor in chief. It aggressively attacked, item by item, the unpatriotic conduct of the House of Representatives, as well as its tendency to support the communist agenda. It declared that the Washington Times was breaking with the usual custom of American newspapers to start a contributions fund for the Nicaraguan Contras. For the sake of the Nicaraguan freedom fighters, for the sake of America and the world, the Times would collect funds to replace the $14 million of humanitarian aid denied by Congress. The editorial was a manifesto. It called upon U.S. citizens to pick up the sword of justice and outrage, for all to participate in the fundraising efforts. Not only would the voluntary donations made by free individuals support the Nicaraguan Contras, the editorial argued, but also the fund itself would send a fierce message to the unpatriotic and leftist Congress. In conclusion, the editorial declared that the Times would contribute $100,000 to the newly created Nicaraguan Freedom Fund, just to get the ball rolling.

The following is the text of the editorial.

Meg Greenfield, the brilliant liberal woman who directs the OP's Other Paper's, referring to the Washington Post] editorial page, explained it once as a staple of our post-Vietnam thinking. Any Third World leader who is pro-American is probably not worth having as a friend anyway, whereas any leader who calls himself or herself progressive or "non-aligned" or Marxist can he assumed to enjoy the allegiance of his or her people. That, of course, is what Texans call a blivet -- l0 pounds of horse feathers in a one-pound bag. But it remains to this day an article of faith among editorial writers -- and many reporters -- in the liberal media. That covers about 95 percent of our profession.

It is not even a reflection of that palpably fraudulent moral equivalence syndrome which holds that while the USSR does terrible and evil things, the U.S. does equally terrible and evil things. It's even worse. This warped post-Vietnam thinking has led some liberal media gurus to conclude that the Soviet Union's record and agenda in the world are less threatening to world peace than America's....

Many of our congressmen have been regurgitating these blivets for years. This has led to the betrayal of friends all over the world. And this death knell continues. The latest House vote refusing so much as doughnuts to the Nicaraguan resistance has brought shame to the leader of the Free World. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick called it "nauseatingly self-defeating." Now some congressmen tell us they would have voted for aid to the resistance had they known that while they were engaged in what passes for debate these days, the Soviets shipped more than $14 million in military supplies to the self-avowed Marxist regime in Nicaragua.

A not insignificant number of congressmen said Daniel Ortega's sudden departure for Moscow to seek $200 million in aid the minute Congress had betrayed our friends caught them by surprise. Had they known, they have told me, they would have voted assistance to the resistance. Is it possible for representatives of the people of our great country to be that naive? Possibly. More likely, however, is that their minds were manipulated by "The Network" of disinformation artists... They certainly were not responding to their constituents who do not -- repeat not -- wish to see another Cuba in this hemisphere.

To paraphrase Charles Peguy, the French poet and philosopher, it may never be known how many acts of cowardice have been committed throughout history out of fear of not looking and sounding sufficiently progressive. The Washington Times vehemently denounces the betrayal of America's friends.

When people equate the motives and objectives of the United States with those of the Soviet Union and vice versa, which many media stars are increasingly prone to do; when people are no longer willing to distinguish between the eternal principles of the American revolution and a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship; when people are no longer willing to fight and die to preserve their freedoms; when congressmen refuse $14 million to people who are willing to fight and die in the struggle against totalitarianism, then the totalitarian temptation itself cannot he far behind. That's what the American people said "no" to on Nov. 6, 1984. That mandate cannot be betrayed in the name of political expediency.

This newspaper recently offered a $1 million reward for information leading to the arrest, trial and conviction of Josef Mengcic, the Nazi war criminal now believed to be living in South America. Beginning today, the Washington Times will launch a worldwide fundraising drive to provide the Nicaraguan resistance fighters with the $14 million in aid -- humanitarian aid -- that the House turned down. There are now 15,000 anti-Communist Nicaraguan resistance fighters. The Abraham Lincoln brigade, which fought on the Republican side in the Spanish civil war, is still treated with awesome veneration. Anyone who fights against the Marxist tyranny in Nicaragua is dismissed by the liberals as a mercenary or a Somocista. The fact is that fewer than 2 percent of the resistance fighters are former members of Somoza's National Guard. They are not fighting for a restoration of Somoza's late, unlamented, corrupt dictatorship. But they are fighting for values that every American should cherish more than life itself.

Support for outmanned and outgunned freedom fighters must be done now so a clear message is sent worldwide that the American people will not turn their backs on those seeking freedom.

To do this, the Washington Times will form a non-profit, public corporation, assuming no legal prohibitions, to raise funds for Nicaragua's freedom fighters. To start this fund, the Washington Times will make a $100,000 contribution. Freedom must be supported, just as the French support of the American Revolution made this country possible.

-- Arnaud de Borchgrave, Editor in Chief

He wrote this editorial the very day that I called him. I don't know if the writing was particularly powerful, but well-known scholar and then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick telephoned the Washington Times offices. She heaped praise on the front-page editorial, saying that it sent chills down her spine, and threw her support behind the fund. Charlton Heston, star of such Hollywood classics as Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments, also pledged his help. William Simon, former secretary of the treasury, offered to serve as chairman of this Nicaraguan Freedom Fund.

Things really started to move. Telephone calls offering support, praise, and encouragement poured into our offices, and from the next day, the contributions came in like a flood.

The White House was so happy it couldn't contain itself. President Reagan directly called our chief editor and expressed his thanks. Upon receiving my report of these results, Reverend Moon was overjoyed. He gave me instructions to carry out a bold initiative, the next stage in his plan: to make the Washington Times editorial of May 5 into a full-page advertisement and place it in the fifty main newspapers across the United States.

A brouhaha blew up across the nation. Popular opinion criticizing Congress erupted like a storm, and at the same time, sentiment to aid the Nicaraguan Contras became the dominant public view across America. Congressmen were astounded. In fact, many had played both sides of the field, first portraying themselves as conservative patriots in their home constituencies, both by word and behavior, but after finding the strong liberal currents dominating in Congress, submitting to the liberal way of thinking. These politicians started to panic at the thought that their constituencies might find out what they were actually doing.

The political mood in Washington changed abruptly. The House retrieved from the trashcan the Nicaraguan Contra Support Bill (humanitarian aid) that it had so perfunctorily killed, and it was reintroduced. On June 12, the bill was passed by a safe majority: 248-184. It was a singular event, unprecedented in the history of Congress. Not only that, the amount of aid was almost doubled, from the $14 million the administration had requested to $27 million.

In this way, Reverend Moon's single resolution, made in Danbury Correctional Institute, precipitated an incredible result. President Reagan, now encouraged and supported by public opinion, unfolded, one after another, a number of courageous Contra aid proposals (in 1986 the administration implemented a $1 billion aid package, including $70 million of military aid). Step by step the Reagan Doctrine started to take effect. In the jungles of Africa or the rain forests of Southeast Asia, in the desert or the Siberian plains, in every part of the world, champions fighting for liberty were respected and supported, just like the Founding Fathers of the United States had been.

From their base in Honduras, a neighboring country, the Contras stoutly continued their anti-communist insurrection. In the end, their activities inflicted substantial damage on the Sandinista regime, which eventually entered into cease-fire negotiations with them as the only means to resolve the nationwide state of civil war. Finally, on February 25, 1990, free elections were held. The people of Nicaragua overthrew the communist government by the democratic process and elected Violeta Chamorro. This was the first case in history where a communist government was overthrown by a democratic election.

Chamorro knew clearly who to thank for the favorable developments in Nicaragua. On the occasion of her trip to New York City to attend a UN General Assembly session, the first place she visited was East Garden, the residence of Reverend Moon. In his meeting with the Nicaraguan president, Reverend Moon stressed to her the importance of a sense of conviction and aspiration.

So in the end, who was responsible for the liberation of Nicaragua? Wasn't it Reverend Moon, who sat in a federal prison? Wasn't the crucial role played by none other than the Washington Times?

On October 4, 1996, Reverend Moon's wife, Mrs. Hak Ja Han Moon, visited Nicaragua and was received by President Chamorro. Mrs. Moon also delivered a historically significant address to the government and leaders of the Nicaraguan nation.

The downfall of the Soviet Union, center of the communist empire, was formally enacted on December 25, 1991. After the failure of the conservative coup d'etat attempt by hardliners in August, President Mikhail Gorbachev disbanded the Communist Party (the presidential system was introduced by an amendment to the constitution in March 1990 and Gorbachev became the first Soviet president while concurrently holding the position of party general secretary). The various republics forming the union seized the opportunity and declared their independence. Gorbachev attempted to maintain the federal system of the USSR, but his efforts came to no effect. With the coming of December, three predominantly Slav republics -- Russia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia -- declared the end of the Soviet Union and established the Confederation of Independent States (OS). Other nations quickly joined, and on December 25, Gorbachev resigned the presidency, since his position had been reduced to an ineffective one.

By the time this historic chain of events took place, President Reagan had already left the White House. The U.S. president who actually witnessed the demise of the Soviet Union was George Bush (in office 1989-1993).

In 1988, three years before the Soviet Union collapsed, President Reagan, who had put into effect the strategy that brought about the end of the Cold War, completed his eight-year term in office and was getting ready to pass the baton to his successor. In accordance with the Constitution, the president is prohibited from being elected three times, so the question of who would be the president after Reagan became one of primary importance. His successor had to be someone with a strong sense of conviction and capable of implementing and extending Reagan's policies. George Bush was the one selected to fulfill this task.

He had been a faithful and upright vice president. Moreover, as a politician, He had a high moral and ethical standard. He is a dedicated husband, father, and grandfather.

The Washington Times was very familiar with George Bush's ability, anti-communist fighting spirit, and high morals. He had been a fighter pilot in the Air Force during World War II, and was a real war hero, having narrowly escaped death after being shot down by the Japanese in the Pacific. The Times welcomed President Reagan's choice of George Bush as his successor.

Strangely, though, in all the 200-year history of the United States, there has only been one instance of an incumbent vice president winning the candidacy and then being elected president. Going by the statistics of past experience, then, it was hard to be optimistic about Bush's chances of getting elected.

I went to New Orleans for the Republican National Convention with de Borchgrave. The day was August 8, 1988. A convention lasts about four days. On the evening of the final day, the convention comes to a fever pitch. Amid much fanfare, the presidential candidate gives his speech accepting the nomination of his party and the convention comes to a close. But during this particular national convention, something happened to upset the flow.

George Bush had selected Sen. Dan Quayle (R Indiana) as running mate. It had been reported, however, that Quayle had used the influence of the press and his position as the scion of a prominent media family (in his home state of Indiana) to avoid military service and a tour of duty during the Vietnam War. The media were increasingly focusing attacks on the candidate.

The executive committee of the Republican Party was thrown into a state of confusion. Opinion within the party was divided. Certain quarters strongly voiced the opinion that if things continued as they were, failure in the presidential election was assured. They said it was critical that the vice presidential candidate be changed.

Bush was perplexed. Truly this was a difficult dilemma, but there was no time to think the matter over. The acceptance speech for the nomination, now only one day away, had to be made together with the vice presidential candidate. What was he to do? Should he trust in his first choice and push ahead with Dan Quayle, or should he change his mind? Not only Bush but the entire Republican Party struggled with this question.

I reported this state of affairs to Reverend Moon from New Orleans and explained the dilemma facing the Republican Party. In a few powerful words, Reverend Moon gave a lucid interpretation of the situation.

They must not vacillate now. Bush has to forge ahead with his first conviction. If he changes the candidate for vice president now, Bush will definitely lose the election. His choice for vice president was his first decision as candidate. If he changes his conviction now, just because the media are turning up the heat, who would follow such a wishy-washy president? He has to just shut his eyes and believe in Dan Quayle. Now's the time for George Bush to show what he is made of!

When I consulted de Borchgrave, he agreed. This conclusion became the view of the Washington Times. De Borchgrave conveyed our newspaper's position on the matter to Bush. Later, de Borchgrave described to me what he told him: "If you change your choice of candidate for VP at this point in time, the Washington Times will not support you."

On the closing day of the convention, Bush's speech was both eloquent and full of the conviction of victory. Standing side by side, Bush proudly clasped the hand of his running mate, Dan Quayle, with no suggestion of any dissonance whatsoever.

From the next day forward, de Borchgrave focused all his effort on an editorial strategy to counter the liberal media assault against Quayle. He came up with a fantastic plan. First, the Times revealed the records of military service of all the members of Congress. The reality was simply appalling. Most had no experience serving in the military. The number of those who fought in the Vietnam War was few, and even the number of those who served in the National Guard was small. Quayle had at least legally completed his term in the National Guard. (He volunteered and joined the Indiana National Guard in 1969 at the height of the Vietnam conflict, and served for six years.) The Times also disclosed the names of all those who had intentionally and perniciously avoided military duty, the ones who really dodged the Vietnam conflict. After reading this article, Congress was in such a stink that it seemed like someone had kicked a hornet's nest. At this point, the lawfulness and propriety of Quayle's history became evident. Democratic congressmen dropped the matter.

But the Times didn't stop here. It investigated the realities of military duty by all the people in the media who had lambasted Quayle as a draft dodger. Surprisingly, the more vehement the criticism directed at Quayle, the more unequivocally the author of the criticism was found to be part of the pacifist movement. The facts were exposed in a Times feature story. Now it was media industry's turn to act like a hornet's nest. As soon as the names were revealed, the voices criticizing Dan Quayle as a draft dodger disappeared without a trace. In boxing terms, this was nothing short of a knockout.

Even then, the Times was not satisfied. Going a step further, we investigated the Democratic candidate for vice president. Here another surprising fact came to light. If anyone was guilty of draft dodging, it was not Republican candidate Dan Quayle but Democratic candidate Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas. The facts revealed that Benson had abused his authority as senator to have his son transferred from the regular Army to the National Guard so he could evade fighting in the Vietnam War. When these facts came to light, it was the Democrat Party's turn to feel the heat. At this point, there was not one single voice in the Democrat Party who had a thing to say about Quayle and draft dodging.

In this way, the Times testified to Quayle's integrity through a three-day mop-up strategy. Not only were the criticisms and jibes of the media cut short, but we also succeeded on putting the Democrats on the defensive.

As soon as the flush-Quayle team won the election, Quayle came directly to our offices. He expressed his thanks, saying, "My victory today was thanks to the Washington Times"

Hypothetically speaking, if Bush had not been elected, would history still have gone down the road that led to the downfall of communism? Probably not. It is quite possible that the eight years of administrative achievements won by President Reagan with blood and sweat would have gone up in smoke.

So who is it that drives the ship of history? Heaven. Heaven is the force that drives the ship of history.

For eight years, in the midst of all kinds of heavy opposition, President Reagan had overcome each obstacle and implemented his Reagan Doctrine step-by-step. I'm sure that Ronald Reagan experienced a great deal of emotion when observing the proceedings at Bush's inauguration. I also think he must have given a sigh of relief, to see America and the world moving forward under the guidance of a good leader.

A few days before that inauguration, I was unexpectedly invited to the White House. At that time I was still president of the Washington Times Corporation. I met alone with President Reagan in the Oval Office. Although he was quite busy with the changeover of the administration, the president had made the time to see me. As I sat face to face with Reagan, the president spoke: "Dr. Pak, thank you for coming. Over the last eight years, I have been helped more by the Washington Times than anyone else. If it weren't for the support of the Washington Times, it would have been impossible to advance the Reagan Doctrine. Please express my deepest thanks to the founder, Reverend Moon. I know well how much sacrifice and effort he has made."

The president firmly gripped my hand. I returned the president's hold with my own two hands, and spoke. "Isn't Reverend Moon the one who received a revelation from God eight years ago that you would be president? Reverend Moon always thought that helping you was the work of God. Mr. President, God and Reverend Moon are the ones most happy and pleased by your great efforts and results. Mr. President! Thank you very much!"

I was talking with the commander in chief who brought down world communism, but he was still, after all, simply a loyal and righteous public worker for God.

These great and historic achievements were accomplished by God. And the one God had established as his representative on earth was Rev. Sun Myung Moon. I only felt sad that the handshake I was exchanging wasn't a handshake between President Reagan and Reverend Moon. As I walked out of the White House, I felt as if I were closing one chapter of history and opening another. I made my way back to the Washington Times.

I promptly reported the meeting with President Reagan to Reverend Moon by phone. He replied, in a statement pregnant with meaning, "In fact, President Reagan should have called on me. But as he couldn't, it's good that you could meet him in my place. Now Reagan has just one thing left to do." With these words, Reverend Moon brought the matter to a close.

Four years earlier, in August 1985, the Professors World Peace Academy (PWPA), an organization founded by Reverend Moon for academics, had held its second international symposium in Geneva. The purpose of the convention was to make a prophetic declaration: "The Fall of the Soviet Empire." And the fall was predicted to take place within five years.

In those days, the Soviet economy had already started its walk down the path to decline and exhaustion, but the power of the Soviet empire still appeared as strong as ever, seemingly extending to the heavens themselves. It was a time when communist influence was expanding worldwide and the communization of the globe appeared inevitable. The free world was in a situation where it desperately needed to create a bulwark against the communist tide and then to counterattack. Who could have predicted the downfall of the Soviet empire at that time? Even if someone made the prediction, who would believe it?

The chairman of this international symposium was Dr. Morton Kaplan. Currently Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science Emeritus at the University of Chicago, he was formerly a researcher at the Brookings Institution, Princeton University's Center of International Studies, and the Hudson Institute. He also headed the Strategic Foreign Affairs Research Center. Kaplan, however, had great reservations about having this particular theme for the conference. He simply felt he couldn't make such a huge declaration as "the downfall of the Soviet communist empire."

Kaplan made his way to the Danbury prison and entreated Reverend Moon. As a scholar, he couldn't make such an outlandish declaration, he explained, and he asked Reverend Moon to change the theme to "The Possibility of the Fall of the Soviet Empire." Reverend Moon, however, firmly refused to change the title. "If you don't believe in me more than that, then perhaps you should just resign the position of chairman. What I am doing is simply attempting to convey the Will of God."

Kaplan was well aware of the significant prophecies Reverend Moon had made on several occasions. Therefore, at the international PWPA conference, and despite having a number of misgivings, the professor indeed declared that the downfall of the USSR was approaching and that the collapse would arrive within five years. He later testified how he had no confidence in the prediction and was in fact scared stiff at the thought of what he was actually declaring.

As Kaplan put it, "At the time, the Soviet Union was considered by all to be a solid and stable system still expanding its influence throughout the world, and the theme of our conference was actually unthinkable for a great number of scholars. However, within just a few years after that conference, the Soviet Union began to crumble.

"Actually, Reverend Moon once addressed scholars from all over the world at a PWPA conference held in South Korea in 1983. Although the speech he gave at that time could well be described as prophetic, I myself thought that the contents of the speech were much too bold, particularly where Reverend Moon said that 'within three years the Soviet system will begin to shake and will crumble within seven years at the most.'

"Now, having come this far, I cannot but help be amazed at Reverend Moon's foresight and vision. I myself thought that it would have taken at least ten years." (Translated from Segye Sasang magazine, August 1993.)

On another occasion, at the founding conference for the Soviet chapter of PWPA, Dr. Kaplan reminisced, "When I heard Reverend Moon's prediction in 1985, I thought it was impossible. However, if I had used the words 'maybe' then, I would look rather foolish at this point in time." This conference took place at the time of the eleventh World Media Conference, held in Moscow in April 1990.

The prelude to the collapse of the Soviet Union began in the second half of 1989 with the eruption of democratization movements in Eastern Europe. After the collapse of the Berlin Wall on November 9, the trend toward the liberation of communism gained speed. These movements spread to the republics within the Soviet Union, and the Gorbachev regime began to break apart. It was only a matter of time until the Soviet federation collapsed and communism itself was abandoned.

As the above-mentioned episodes show, the actions of Reverend Moon have been underwritten by an incredible sense of foresight. He predicted the election of President Reagan, founded the Washington Times, and triggered numerous miracles. He also foresaw the demise of the Soviet Union and boldly declared this to the entire world before the fact. He single-handedly made a path into Moscow and met with President Gorbachev in 1990, thus fulfilling his prediction that "the next rally will be in Moscow," a prediction he matte before 300,000 people at his Washington Monument rally in 1976.

Would all of these things he possible if Reverend Moon weren't God's emissary to the world? Who else would imagine these things, even in their dreams?