Conservatives usually simply call themselves, as I do, "conservatives"; and will admit they hold views which are considered "right wing" in the contemporary political culture. Leftists, however, are often less forthcoming. Usually a leftist activist is simply called an "expert" when interviewed by the media; most my friends on the left imagine they're in the "center"; and even Democrats typically refer to their candidates as "moderate" — even those who want the government to take over huge swaths of the economy.

Jim Wallis is no exception. He calls himself "non-partisan" though usual schtick is to echo nearly everything on the Democratic party agenda, right on cue, but make occasional meek noises about pro-life issues. Like many leftists (and a few over here on the right), he regularly and publicly imputes evil intentions to those who fail to hold his views.

Over at National Review, Jay Richards notes that Wallis seems to received substantial funding from George Soros:

Before responding directly, Wallis launched into bizarre invective against Olasky, claiming (among other things) that Olasky believes in a "sinless market." This caricature is practically surreal to anyone familiar with Olasky's actual views.... Olasky is a Calvinist, which means he places particularly strong emphasis on human depravity in every area of human experience, including the market.

Wallis continued:

"It's not hyperbole or overstatement to say that Glenn Beck lies for a living. I'm sad to see Marvin Olasky doing the same thing. No, we don't receive money from Soros. Given the financial crisis of nonprofits, maybe Marvin should call Soros and ask him to send us money.... Our money comes from Christians who support us and who read Sojourners."

Well, as I said above, I've got physical copies of what appear to be grants to Sojourners from the Open Society Institute website... Alas, as I was writing this piece, the relevant webpages started disappearing.

George Soros's own people admitted they'd given money to Sojourners. Yet right after the question is asked, the web pages documenting that funding start disappearing. And Wallis carefully says they "don't" receive money from Soros — not saying he never did. And, of course, he calls those who raise these bits of evidence, or otherwise disagrees with him, a "liar", implying they actually lie for money.

There's almost certainly more to this story, though. According to Sojourners' 990s... their total assets went from $513,896 in 2002 to $4,615,468 in 2009. Call me skeptical, but I'd be willing to bet that this windfall didn't all come from humble readers of Sojourners magazine. If in fact Wallis did get money from Soros and various other left-wing foundations, what I don't get is why Wallis doesn't just say, "Sure, we get (or have gotten) money from left-wing foundations. We differ on a few points but agree on a host of important issues."

Because that would clearly contradict his claims of nonpartisanship.

Nice piece of work, that one.