Over the years, Michael “Mikey” Weinstein has demonstrated that he is fairly adept at public relations, though he has stumbled a few times. (For example, he failed to rebut accusations he was “cashing in” on donations last year, and he more recently failed to support his claims of his White House duties.)  Contributing to his public relations “victories” have been the public relations shortcomings of his primary foe, the US military.  In many cases, the US military has allowed Weinstein to shape the narrative — an opening of which he has taken full advantage.

Weinstein recently claimed that a US Army recruiting poster that said “On a Mission for God and Country” was

• an “unconstitutional disgrace,”
• an “unconstitutional catastrophe,” and
• a “stinking poster of unconstitutional malfeasance.”

Ultimately, the Army told the recruiters to remove the poster, said publicly the poster hadn’t gone through the proper processes, and indicated that if it had gone through the process, it would not have been approved.

That was it. And for Weinstein and his acolytes, that was enough. To them, the US Army just validated their claim.

Speaking for the MRFF, US Marine Reserve SSgt Paul Loebe explains [emphasis added]:

The sign in question was indeed a violation of the establishment clause of the 1st amendment to the US Constitution. Were it not, then the Army would not have acted so quickly to take it down.

Normally, Loebe — an atheist — would be quick to criticize such a logical fallacy if someone else used it, but since its suits his purposes here, he’s more than happy to use it himself.

Quite obviously, the US Army’s decision to remove the poster does not, ipso facto, validate Weinstein’s claims that the poster was unconstitutional — but that’s a narrative to which the military left itself open when it was less than proactive in its public affairs.

It should be no surprise — to the US military or anyone else — that Weinstein would try to shape the narrative, because it’s something he routinely does.  Knowing that, US military public affairs personnel should be wise enough to scope the official response to avoid the appearance they are legitimizing Weinstein’s cause — something they clearly don’t want to do, given his incessant attacks on Christians and religious liberty.

To be fair, the military may not care if it appears to validate Weinstein’s agenda — because it may not care about him.  Given the attention the military’s capitulations to Weinstein have received in the past — including the attention of Congress, the arm of government authorized by the Constitution to “raise and support armies” — perhaps it should make an effort at caring.

ADVERTISEMENT