Local Editorial Scolds Over-the-Top Weinstein

The IndyStar, which has naturally followed accusations against Indiana’s Adjutant General MajGen Marty Umbarger, published a short editorial that scolded Michael Weinstein for his self-appointed role as judge, jury, and executioner:

[Umbarger’s video] raised the ire of a self-appointed watchdog, an attorney named Mikey Weinstein, who started an organization that bills itself as the Military Religious Freedom Foundation…

In an over-the-top protest, Weinstein has demanded that the general be relieved of his command and court-martialed…

The editorial does not attempt to proclaim General Umbarger’s video statement as without error; it merely says that, if it is an error, it does not rise to the ridiculous demands Weinstein makes: 

The more reasonable approach would be to remind Umbarger that he should not have worn his uniform while taping the video. And then leave it at that.

This is where Jason Torpy of the MAAF often bests the hyperbolic Weinstein and his MRFF.  While Torpy likewise makes ludicrous overarching statements (a cross memorial is an attempt to “secure unconstitutional Christian privilege…”), he has never demanded heads on pikes or claimed American Christians are secretly executing “Plan B.”

Even Weinstein’s wife Bonnie (also his employee as the MRFF “development director”) has publicly said he’s gone “overboard,” but she excuses it by saying “quiet and nice doesn’t work.”  Loud and obnoxious doesn’t “work,” either, as Weinstein’s history has shown — unless by “work” one means bringing donations in to the charity that’s single largest expense is Weinstein’s paycheck.

“Shock” does get you publicity, and if that’s what you really want, it should work out well as long as the media continues to be shocked. As Weinstein has found out, however, maintaining that level of shock requires progressively more outlandish accusations and demands over the minutest of affronts.  (Weinstein jumped the shark long ago.)

Such extremism has made Weinstein a sideshow, and — as it is evident the publicity is what Weinstein really wants — it proves he has no real desire to see “religious freedom” defended.


  • I think that Robert Dorr’s piece in the latest Air Force Times carries just a bit more weight than an editorial in the IndyStar. Here’s what Mr. Dorr had to say about Mikey’s approach:

    “Weinstein has a relentlessness that can be off-putting, even to people who share his opposition to proselytizing in the military. He told me he receives death threats. He told me he is “the most reviled graduate of the Air Force Academy.” He was in the Class of 1977.

    ‘Still — as officials confirmed for me — it was mostly because of Weinstein’s in-your-face activism that Air Force Instruction 1-1, Section 2.11, came into existence Aug. 7.”

  • @Chris Rodda
    Weinstein already admitted he and Gen Schwartz, who published that AFI, were buds for years.

    It is not surprising, then, that Weinstein should have exerted such influence over “officials” in the Air Force — something Weinstein has simultaneously denied as ridiculous and embraced as a sign of his self-importance. Even he knows its hard to claim you’re being persecuted if top military leaders are bending to your will.

    Many people in Weinstein’s “foundation,” as well as his allies, have acknowledged Weinstein overuses adjectives and his vitriolic “rhetoric” goes “overboard.” Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

  • You just don’t like that it works.

  • Do we excuse those at the top for making egregious errors in judgement or do we call them on it and remind them that their rank and position don’t provide immunity?

    This may have been one simple mistake on the part of Gen. Umbarger in this case but what could this mistake cost in terms of life if it were made in a combat situation?

    Our leaders must be on top of the situation at all times.