Mitchell Levin writes a daily “This Day in Jewish History” that is carried a few places on the internet.  At the Jewish CJN, the July 16 edition of Levin’s piece featured none other than Michael Weinstein.  This is how Levin — who appears to have no stake or hidden agenda — portrays Weinstein:

2006: In an article entitled “Marching as to War,” The Washington Post reported on the efforts of Mikey Weinstein, graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy and the father of an academy graduate, to stop the missionary work of Christian ministers at the Air Force Academy.  In particular he is targeting the Officer’s Christian Fellowship who says its goal is a “spiritually transformed military with ambassadors for Christ in in uniform, empowered by the Holy Spirit.”

The Washington Post article was largely friendly to Weinstein.  According to Levin’s summary, though, Weinstein’s purpose is opposition to “Christian ministers,” and he is particularly “targeting” OCF.

Notice that in the brief summary of Michael Weinstein’s short time on the public scene, “religious freedom” is nowhere mentioned (though it was claimed by Weinstein in the cited Post article).  Weinstein is remembered not for his “advocacy” for “freedom,” but for his attacks specifically on Christians.  It seems Weinstein’s legacy has been sealed — and it has been revealed for the truth of what it is, not the façade he paints upon it.

As an aside, the original 2006 Post article made one astute observation that has been verified in recent years:

Judging by his taste in cars, Weinstein appears to have plenty of disposable income, but he declines to discuss his finances: “I’m wealthy in the love I have for my family, that’s all I’ll say.”

The author was referring to Weinstein’s decision to trade in his $85,000 Viper “for an even more exotic Lotus,” which is what the heads of all the cool tax-exempt charities were driving that year.  Of course, as the founder and sole paid officer for that “charity,” Weinstein can’t “decline” to reveal his finances to the IRS.  But at the time of the article, Weinstein had yet to tell the donors to his “charity” that he would take nearly half of their tax-deductible donations as a personal paycheck that year, so naturally he demurred.  Of course, it is now well-known that Weinstein’s lavish lifestyle has been well-supported by his charitable donors in the years since the Post article was published.