Diplomacy Always Triumphs Over Action (Our Ideology Says So)

Pay no attention to those masked Russian soldiers with very large guns.
They're not really in Ukraine. President Obama has used his magic diplomacy!
We may expect unicorns and universal healthcare any minute now.

In 2008 Sarah Palin predicted that a wishy-washy response to Russia's invasion of Georgia would only encourage them to invade Ukraine next. The liberal press piled on her for that calling her a dim bulb and telling her not to worry her pretty little head about that because Obama's wise diplomacy would prevent that from ever happening. Now that the Russians have invaded Ukraine, the liberal self-appointed pundits claim that diplomacy is actually working despite appearances to the contrary.

One self-styled pundit said that threats of violence never work with Russia and that the Cold War ended, not because of Reagan's tough stance with the Russkies, but  because of "diplomacy".  Yeah, right - diplomacy in the form of more US military power than the fragile Communist Soviet Union's smoke and mirrors economy could keep up with. Diplomacy, they say, is actually working because President Obama is the smartest president ever and because, according to our ideology, diplomacy works. Diplomacy, they say, if done properly by a Democrat administration, works. The liberal punditry have said it works, therefore it must be working (again, despite evidence to the contrary).

Me? I think Palin was right.

© 2014 by Tom King
Sarah Palin image © Gage Skidmore
Russian soldiers © Daily Caller

Open Letter to a Liberal Snob

Response to a Salon.com post on how pointless Sarah Palin is.

"The peasants are revolting!"

I love it when you libs spend all that energy explaining how some conservative or other is pointless. If Sarah Palin is so pointless, why are you guys so perturbed about her? If she's like all the other people over the years that liberal pundits have proclaimed either stupid, trivial or, now, "pointless", you may be in trouble. I read in the Times and New Yorker recently how Glenn Beck is an idiot and stupid and far beneath notice of the author of the piece - though he did manage to notice him enough to write an article about how stupid he is. Next thing I know, the same guys are whimpering because the New York Times bestseller list is dominated by books Glenn Beck has recommended, pushing off all the glib liberal pundits that used to live there in cool intellectual security.

Hey, Glenn has people reading again. He’s not just selling his books; he’s selling millions of books for obscure professors and academics, newspaper columnists and freelance writers. Where's the kudos to him for that! The publishing industry must be loving the sales numbers. They're probably scrambling right now looking for the next conservative blockbuster they can get him to recommend. All the while, you can bet their staff holds its collective pseudo-intellectual nose (not forgetting to endorse those paychecks when they deposit them, though).

From articles like this and others in the liberal blogosphere, it's obvious that you guys really do think regular folks like me are complete idiots that never check out anything but simply stumble around blindly doing as we're told.

Well you're wrong. What scares the willy out of the progressive left right now is that the conservative tea party movement doesn't seem to be collapsing. The mythical payoffs from big insurance were supposed to run out and all those grandmas and grandpas and guys in overalls and feed store caps were supposed to stop coming to rallies once they weren't being paid anymore
What happened? Why are the rallies growing ever larger? Why are we dominating the bestseller lists? Why are news media that offer a conservative viewpoint burying the mainstream media that sits solidly on the left? Why are the incumbents in both parties that got our country into this mess in the first place dropping like flies in the primaries (or bailing out while they can still collect their pensions)?

You may not like us, Bub, but we're real and we will not go quietly into that good night as we were expected to (and yes, we do read poetry). You may think we are just a collection of the most stupid people in the country and that we are being herded sheep-like by golden-tongued radio personalities.

Keep thinking that and you really will continue to be utterly surprised as we stand up en masse to oppose the blind rush to socialism that the left has been engineering for so long.

Once, the lower 50% of the IQ range in this country belonged to the Democrat party and voted blindly because they were told (more like chanted at really) that Republicans were rich exploiters and besides FDR saved us from the depression. Unfortunately for Dems, the conservatives are beginning to dip down into the loyal Democrats for new converts. Simple folks are beginning to hear a coherent message from conservatives like Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and others that makes sense to them. The Democrats are doing stuff that makes them so mad, they’ve forgotten FDR and the propaganda about how evil Rush Limbaugh is supposed to be. They’re having a little listen and discovering that the evil conservatives are a lot more like them than are the spokeswomen for the “People’s Party”.

You're losing them and you haven’t a prayer of gaining any traction with the diverse and often very bright set of folks that have taken up the tea party banner. As people grow more angry with what the federal government is up to, you’ll see more folks lose their fear of being seen publicly to align themselves with the tea party. The crowds will continue to swell and the ratings will continue to rise.

You libs remind me of the fat burghers in Europe who lived constantly in dread that the peasants would figure out what was going on and rise up and murder them in their beds. Of course, they were also constantly trying to figure out how to keep the peasants fed (but not too well fed), how to keep them quiet, but busy on the farms and how to work them to a stupor so they wouldn’t have time or energy to figure out how scared the barons and earls really were of them.

It won't happen like that here. America’s peasant class is well fed (by its own efforts), but not so quiet. America’s one of the few countries in the world where obesity is a problem among our poor. It’s kind of odd really.

It is nice that you fear that we’ll murder you all in your beds. It makes for some really entertaining media. We enjoy watching jumpy liberals look for boogers at every tea party rally. Some of you guys have even resorted to manufacturing boogers and taking them to tea parties – I suppose to relieve your anxiety. By the way, you need to work on being a little more subtle when you misspell words on signs. The gun-toting Nazis in the group can pick you out like an orange pig in yellow grass.

I mean after all the tea party people are supposed to be gun-toting Nazis aren’t they? The progressive ideology says so. If the tea party folk aren’t gun-toting Nazis, what else could be wrong with progressive ideology? And that thought is apparently unthinkable to the progressive mind. We see that in socialist countries where the news reports vary widely from actual conditions on the ground in those countries. The elitist socialist will not tolerate variance from his ideology, even in the face of reality. Better to manufacture evidence than admit the ideology is flawed.

People tend to see the world through their own prejudices, beliefs and attitudes. Thieves see everyone as a potential thief. People who love power think everyone around them wants to take their power from them. After all, it’s what they’d do if the tables were turned. People, who think they are smarter than everyone else, tend to view others not in their “class” as stupid. They delude themselves into believing that most everyone except for themselves and their circle is stupid and that they should, somehow, be smart enough to figure out how to make all those stupid people do what they want them to do. They are, after all, stupid and incapable of governing themselves. The ideology says so.

What you've done, though, is finally get the attention of all those folks you thought were so stupid. You see, all those wonderfully diverse and intelligent folks out there who were content to let you guys play power games for all these years, so long as you left them alone to do their business and live their lives, have suddenly realized that you guys are really starting to mess things up. When you start diddling with people’s paychecks, you get their attention. You're taking their money for things they don't want to buy. You're mortgaging their children's futures

And, yes, Virginia, conservatives have learned, to your horror, how to use slogans effectively - a propaganda technique you always hoped we were too stupid to figure out. People with no interest in technology or the Internet have picked up this useful tool and the propaganda techniques to go with it in response to the threat they see from progressive socialism. And they are using it to devastating effect. Grandmas and grandpas are networking and organizing in a way that would give Saul Alinsky an orgasm if we all were progressive socialists.

Ah, but there's the rub. Once again, an enemy of America has misunderstood the character of the nation and badly misjudged. The Japanese did it back in the 30’s. They thought our preoccupation with business and digging ourselves out of a depression and our love for peace and our tiny military, meant we would fold easily once confronted with the might of the Japanese Empire. After all, Americans are far from warlike was the thinking. The resulting war, which had been going quite well for the Japanese up until they won that great "victory" at Pearl Harbor, turned out rather badly for them once Americans got into it..

The progressive movement thinks that free market capitalism is an "antique" notion and that folks will gladly give up capitalism and a few of our freedoms and privileges as Americans - at least a few at a time - in exchange for small payoffs like healthcare. They think, despite evidence to the contrary, that the time is ripe for the really smart people to finally fix things. They see themselves creating a world without hunger, ill health, homelessness or joblessness. What could be better than that? Oh, and the fat burghers who help create this new worker’s paradise will get to keep their treasure and prestige while the proletariat and working middle class and working wealthy will level out into a nice dreary gray sameness under the benign control of the new government. And the so-called classless society the progressives fantasize about will pretty much ossify the classes into just two - the elite leaders and the proletariat.

Imagine the shock when they begin to reach for our liberties and get their fingers bit off.

It'll be quite a shock to the ideology that believes the ignorant masses will go quietly into that dreary dusk of a once-thriving civilization. But, the left isn’t there yet. They’re still true believers like the arrogant Japanese military leaders in the heady days after Pearl Harbor. They didn’t yet realize they were doomed.

You see, we have help coming soon, from a quarter that no amount of central planning can prepare for. Whatever gains the progressives think they are making, whatever powerful coalitions they think they are creating, they are simply binding themselves into bundles - just like the ones I put out by the curb on Tuesday and Friday.

The brilliant Japanese admiral, Yamamoto, said it best when he lamented after Pearl Harbor that he feared that all they had done was “…waken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”

Tea anyone?

Just one man’s opinion….

Tom King
(c) 2010 originally printed in "Uncle Tom's Traveling Salvation Show" - Open Salon, May 5, 2010

Where's a Statesman When We Need One?



The Greatest Statesman of My Lifetime - Bar None

 One of my favorite weblogs, "The Art of Manliness", just ran a piece called "The Four Qualities of a True Statesman."  Brett & Kay McKay, the authors, certainly picked a subject that would get a lot of comments. Predictably the Paulestinians came out in force and I'm thrilled they're getting so many hits off those guys. They've really kicked the ad revenue of small political blogs like mine into high gear. All you have to do to get a spike is to mention Ron Paul and step back and let the comments roll in.

I agree with Brett's analysis as to what a statesman is. It's not hard to spot a statesman. The top 4 American statesmen who made president in the 1800s are carved on Mt. Rushmore. I think you could add Daniel Webster and Henry Clay to that list whether you like their politics or not. Of all of them, I think Washington was the father and model of true American statesmanship. Lincoln had the toughest job, Jefferson the greatest impact on personal freedom and Teddy Roosevelt was the man on foreign policy - him and his "big stick".

In the 20th century, I’d pick FDR, Eisenhower and Reagan – and possibly Harry Truman. Reagan always befuddled "real" politicians because Reagan actually believed all that stuff he was saying and "the people" believed him when he said it. I believe the others I mentioned had that ability as well, with differing degrees of success at carrying public opinion along with them. Truman, who was no career politician, believed the buck stopped with him and that is very statesmanlike and all kind of manly.

In the 21st century we’ve had a shortage of statesmen so far. I’ll give you Ron Paul as statesmanlike, but no more. He’s as principled in what he believes ought to be done as George W. Bush was on the war on terrorism. GW was wrong on some issues as is Ron Paul. Both have fatal flaws in that they fall short in the consensus building department. I don’t think the 21st century has yet seen its first great statesman yet. The closest to a principled politician I’ve seen so far is Sarah Palin. That woman really believes what she says, though I’m not sure we’re ready to hear it from a woman quite yet, despite our efforts to change our culture in that regard. Sadly, we’re not ready for an American Margaret Thatcher. I do hope one will take the stage at some point. It would be nice to add an American iron lady to that list of iron men.

I do believe that statesmen are no accident. I believe, when we need a statesman, God will raise one up.

• “The greatest want of the world is the want of men—men who will not be bought or sold, men who in their inmost souls are true and honest, men who do not fear to call sin by its right name, men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole, men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall.”  - E.G. White

Oddly enough, it was a woman who wrote that. but then who better to recognize a real man when she sees one?

Just one man's opinion.

Tom King

How Does Track Palin's Wedding Make Sarah a Hypocrite?

Britta Hanson & Track Palin (center)

Apparently Iraq war veteran Track Palin and his high school sweetheart got ahead of themselves according to the media and the couple may have been expecting when they got married. Of course, the press is gleefully calling it a shotgun wedding and the nastier bloggers are calling Palin a hypocrite because she opposes unfettered sex education and schools handing out condoms. Sarah, they chortle, promotes abstinence and yet has two kids that apparently didn't abstain.

You know, so what that? Palin has two grandchildren out of the deal. She seems happy about it.  Her kids are taking responsibility for their mistakes. How is that bad? Protecting our kids from the consequences of their actions is what got us a generation of irresponsible kids in the first place.

The president, on the other hand, said he doesn't want to punish his girls with a baby if they make a similar mistake. Since when is a child a punishment, especially when the family is happy to have the child and the mom's willingly take responsibility for the life they have created? I think Palin's kids are admirable.

I mean either it's just sex and therefore innocuous or it's not - libs can't have it both ways. I'm pretty sure the kids knew what they needed to do to prevent a pregnancy. I've never heard Palin come out against contraceptives as is being reported. She has come out against schools providing contraceptives to kids and describing, perverse sexual practices to minors. Sarah Palin believes it should be the responsibility of families, not the government to teach our kids about sex.

In the heat of youthful passion, Sarah's kids apparently chose to take a risk. Then, they both took responsibility when they lost the bet. That's not hypocricy. That's character!  We all make mistakes. It's what we do afterward that shows who you are.

I advocate abstinence too. I think having sex is an intense and life-changing experience. I've only slept with one woman in my life and we've been together 37 years and been absolutely faithful to our vows. We trust each other completely and much of that is because we chose to treat sex as a sacred act between life partners. I think that's a valuable lesson to teach our children. People who see sex as some form of recreation do not understand why anyone would want to believe that sex should hold such a special place.  That's where the disconnect is between the two sides of the debate over sex education.

If you believe sex is a sacred thing between men and women, then it's very important for you to teach your children about that within the family circle. We want our kids to know that if they decide to engage in that act, they'd better be prepared to make a lifelong committment and take responsibility for the consequences. If you allow public opinion to lower the bar on sex for your family, you find yourself intractably at odds with your own beliefs.  I would rather have a president who is consistent in her beliefs and teaches her children that life is a sacred thing and that you must be responsible when you create life.  I'm less comfortable with one that teaches that an unborn child is something that should be prevented or killed if it's going to spoil your kid's youthful partying.

I don't buy that sex is no big deal and obviously Mrs. Palin and her family do not. I say God bless 'em. Track and his high school sweetheart were obviously committed to one another. He'd been off to war and they got ahead of themselves. It's not all that hard to understand. Can nobody be sympathetic with how they could get carried away by passion? That happens a lot in war time and for crying out loud they were planning to get married anyway - been dating forever. It's amazing how unforgiving and nasty liberals can be if the "sinner" is a Christian. No Christian claims to be perfect. Quite the contrary. Every weekend, we sit in church and listen to pastors tell us we're all sinners and that we must depend on Christ entirely for our salvation.

Because we aim at a higher standard doesn't make us hypocrites. It makes us idealists. Let me repeat. It's not so much that we make mistakes, it's what we do afterward to make it right that reveals our character.

Have the Palin kids had their troubles - yep!  Kids do that, especially preacher's kids and the children of celebrities. I think it has something to do with being in the glare of the spotlight that's on your parents. In the Bible, Solomon advises parents to, "Train up a child in the way that he shall go and when he is old he will not depart from it."  Solomon never promised that, no matter how thoroughly you trained up your children, they wouldn't gallop over Fool's Hill sometime during their teens. Teens do that. It's how they figure out who they are and why they were born. Let the parent who is sinless cast the first stone. And, if you're not a parent, you're still a child, so put down the rocks!

I wish Track and Britta all the blessings in the world. They are a lovely couple with a supportive, close-knit family. Wouldn't it be nice if every young couple had that starting out?


Tom King

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Ms. Palin?

(c) 2011 by Tom King

Sarah Palin gets it from both sides. The left practically froths at the mouth every time you mention her name. On the right, there's a nasty-tempered lot that call her "quitter" and a "lightweight" and all manner of other perjoratives. It's a symptom of the fascination of political hacks with candidates who have "political savvy" - as if possessing political smartness somehow gives you the magical power to fool the ignorant masses into voting the way your side wants them to.

The charges that Palin abandoned her post are at the very least overblown. At worst, they are the product of "political savvy" which makes those who believe those charges part of the "ignorant masses" the politicoes count on swaying to win elections.

If you remember what was happening at the time, Palin was being overwhelmed by frivolous lawsuits and attacked from every side by the media. She had almost got to the point where she could not do her job. To her credit, she took into consideration, not what would be best for her own political future, but what would be best for Alaska's future. She had a splendid lieutenant governor and once she stepped aside, she drew virtually all the political firestorm being ginned up from the left to her.


The left had no interest in the new governor, so he was able to complete what Sarah had started. She knew that it would likely destroy her chances for future office, even among her supporters. All her advisors and practically every pundit you cared to listen to said so. Better to weather the storm than be considered a quitter.

Instead, Governor Palin did what was right for Alaska and she did so at great personal cost. Enough people understood that. Few of us had seen that sort of selflessness in politics in so long that it thrilled us.  We demanded to hear her speak and rewarded her for doing so.  She actually made money. Of course, the left criticized her for that. You knew they would. They will not be satisfied until she is dead or politically discredited with every man, woman and child in America. She quit to make herself rich on speaking fees they charged.

That's a flying load of fertilizers. Palin had NO way of being sure that any of her supporters would stand by her after she resigned.  Her advisors warned her that everyone would turn on her. Many did turn on her. Yet, many also believed she was right to do what she did for Alaska, even at risk to herself and her political career.  Sarah was rewarded because enough people saw the good sense and bravery in what she did.

Good on' her I say. You can, of course, make a strong case for her not having political "sense" in resigning as governor. The question is, do we want someone with good "political sense" in public office or someone who cares about getting done what's best for the people who elected her.

Sarah, in essence, fell on a grenade to save her state. If she'd have continued, the horde of leftist locusts that had already descended on the state would have drained millions in taxpayer dollars from Alaska's treasury. Alaska would have exhausted itself dealing with lawsuits and legal maneuvers that would have crippled the government of a state that is long on resources and land and kind of short on taxpayers and the kind of big state political machinery it would have taken to cope with the onslaught from the left and their "willing accomplices in the media" as Rush calls them.

Sarah is still drawing fire from the rabid left, which gives us the opportunity to find a candidate for president that they haven't swarmed and mauled yet. It's sad that the left will apologize for and excuse their guy despite his miserable record. They forgive him everything he's done or not done. Meanwhile, the right turns on our best, most honest and intelligent leaders at the merest suggestion from the media and the CINOs (conservative in name only) in our midst. They move among us stirring us up against each other; taking down anyone who looks remotely like Ronald Reagan. They can never let that happen again. They took Reagan for a bumbling, elderly actor with no political savvy and didn't consider him a serious challenge to the "man of the people" the Democrats had created in Jimmy Carter. Reagan buried them by being honest and real and genuine, without guile or craft.  They cannot let that happen again. And THAT is what scares them about Palin and why they can never stop piling on to her.

I say God bless Sarah for her sacrifices for the cause. I hope she gets richer than Midas off her speaker fees!  I'd vote for her in a heartbeat if she ran for president, even if not one other person in this whole blessed country did so. The rest of you go look for some plastic candidate with oodles of political savvy. I like my leaders to be real people.

Tom

Digging Out the Speck - Nonprofit Quarterly Questions Beck/Palin Associates

Nonprofit Quarterly's Jeff Cohen this week wrote a piece this week about "Glenn Beck's Nonprofit Ties" that had surprisingly little to say about Beck's ties. Cohen wrote, "....some of the lesser known players wandering past the dais at Beck’s Restoring Honor gathering last week should be of interest to the nonprofit sector if they have questions about the nonprofit values underlying the rally." Jeff had to do some serious digging to find the wisp of dirt he "uncovered". 

His concern was about two players, members of Beck's so-called Black Robe Regiment, Pastor John Hagee, a fiery San Antonio-based preacher who believes the Apocalypse is upon us and Rabbi Daniel Lapin. Apparently, Hagee has a poor opinion of the Catholic Church as an organization and Lapin was once friends with former shady lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. The list of sordidness can be found here. It's mild sordidness by usual Washington DC standards and drags us clear to the Marianas, over to a parochial school in Maryland and "by association" to former Republican Congressman Tom DeLay. It's petty, to say the least, and doesn't list any actual indictments or criminal charges that have been incurred by Rabbi Lapin or Reverend Hagee due to their opinions or friendships. According to Cohen, they are apparently shady characters because of their opinions and friends. 

Look, Hagee is entitled to his opinion re: the Roman Catholics Church whether any of us agree with it or not, and Hagee, himself, denies any animus toward individual Catholics. His problem is with the church organization itself and he is entitled to that opinion. The Catholic Church certainly has opinions about non-Catholics like Hagee and me (did you know, for instance, the Pope holds the opinion that non-Catholics like Hagee and me will burn in hell forever-tortured for our sins in pain for all eternity). Despite my own repugnance at that idea, I think the Pope is entitled to his opinion and to teach it in Catholic churches. Then there's the whole Spanish Inquisition thing, Joan of Arc, Huss, Jerome, Wycliffe, Galileo and others running a centuries long history of church sponsored violence and bloodshed. Hagee didn't have to search nearly as hard as you did to find that sort of dirt on the Catholic Church and isn't that what this article was - a dirt-digging expedition? Wasn't Cohen's article designed chiefly to cast aspersions on Beck and Palin and to impugn the motives of the folks at the Rally?  It certainly seemed that way to me.

Other pastors there have as harsh an opinion of Hagee and his church as he does of some of theirs. But this wasn't about religious opinions. The point of the day was that people like Rev. Hagee could stand side by side with people of many faiths in support of a common set of values - free speech, free assembly, free religion, free press, free economy, etc.. That was a monumentally significant gathering of diverse and peaceful people. No violence at all. Even those who came to incite violence were surrounded quickly by peaceful participants and when they couldn't get a fight started, they became quiet and drifted away.

These were nice people at the rally, up front and in the audience; regular folks from every economic strata, every culture, every race and religion (there were Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Buddhists in the crowd and on stage). They agree that we should return to the values we once espoused in this country, no matter how imperfectly we may have practiced those values. Maybe we'll get it better this time, who knows? But it was a stunning achievement AND it raised a bunch of money for the foundation. I defy you to check out the backgrounds of the leaders and organizers of a typical mall "rally" and find a pristine record of personal ethical behavior, let alone ethical behavior by organizations at second and third remove or folks who happened to wander by the dais.

You certainly won't have to go to the Marianas and, "by extension" to a congressman you don't like, to find corruption. If you are going to look for a speck of sawdust in your neighbor's eye, you might want to check out the log sticking out of your own side's collective eyes. I could name names and connections, but this comment is not about "we said, they said". It's about a fair treatment of everyone. If you are going to select folks "wandering past the dais" as brushes with which to negatively paint Beck and Palin and the whole Restoring Honor Rally, then I challenge you to review with the same intensity the backgrounds of say, the folks who performed at the big concert for 9/11 families, or the organizers of Al Sharton's “Reclaim the Dream” Rally held just down the street on 8/28. Otherwise you appear biased towards a political view and I thought Nonprofit Quarterly was, at least in part, about holding Nonprofits to a higher ethical standard.

I don't think the Special Operations Warriors Foundation did anything wrong, even by association and they were the recipients of the funds raised. Their wrongdoing would be relevant to Nonprofit Quarterly. I don't see how someone who offered prayer or presented an award have anything to do with the ethics of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin anyway.  Lots of folks with unsavory pasts help raise money for U.S. charities and I haven’t seen a lot of complaints at the Nonprofit Quarterly (I could have missed them). The people cited as fishy in this article had no control over or financial ties to the Rally which was, in essence, a fund-raising event. The fact that someone with a connection to a nonprofit has in the past got hooked up with something that may or may not have been ethical has nothing to do with the rally or the foundation’s ethics. I defy almost anyone with a long history in nonprofit and fund-raising work, not to have taken funding from or made an association or connection to something or someone that could be considered shady.

Does that then condemn you to eternal separation from nonprofit fund-raising activities if someone "wanders by the dais" who has a blot on his or her past? If so, the ranks of nonprofit leadership would rapidly be decimated. We can, at best, try to insure we, ourselves, and our organizations behave in an ethical manner. We can turn down money from shady sources. But what our brothers, our volunteers or our partner agencies do outside our events and programs is beyond our power to control. Have you ever been outvoted on a board of directors and stayed to try to correct the error you believed your brother and sister board members were making? If we cut and run, resigning every time there's a problem, we aren't being ethical, we're being cowards. There is a time to dig in our heels and stand for what’s right. We shouldn’t be tarnished for doing so. If we want brave and ethical people at the helm of our nonprofits, we should be a little more reluctant to rush to tarnish reputations on no more than what is "guilt by association".

I think it's irresponsible to do these kinds of snarky hit pieces if you are a website and newsletter promoting ethics among nonprofits. If you have evidence of wrongdoing against the Rally organizers, Beck or Palin, fine. Give evidence.  If someone is misappropriating money, okay. Show us how. But all these charges amount to are an attempt to throw mud.  This type of one-sided "journalism" opens Nonprofit Quarterly up to charges of bias towards a single political viewpoint, to witch-hunting and to light slander (in my church they call it gossip).

Had Mr. Cohen continued with a broad examination of the ethics of the leaders of these kinds of fund-raising rallies, he'd have had a fair article.  This was a hit piece, nothing more and a poorly aimed one.

I'm just telling it like I see it.

Tom King

* Al Sharpton image from The Austin-American Statesman: