"Patriots are not revolutionaries trying to overthrow the government of the United States.
Patriots are Counter-Revolutionaries trying to prevent the government from overthrowing the Constitution."
The Coach’s Team (TCT) offers the best in conservative essays along with articles taken from various internet sites. The victory of Donald Trump has provided a God-sent opportunity to reverse the years of willful damage done our nation by Barack Hussein Obama.
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
Why did the New York Times go after Harvey Weinstein, one of its own?
Has nobody else noted the movie
project apparently being dropped with Harvey out of the picture?
When the New York Times story on
Harvey Weinstein's sexual predation broke, I speculated that the reason the Times would
go after a stalwart Dem donor was the irresistible nature of the scoop, and the
prospect of it being lost, once the "O'Connor Memo" (an internal
Weinstein Company report) was being leaked.
Harvey and friends
Rabbi Aryeh Spero, a regular AT
contributor, has a different perspective and emailed me:
My opinion: He was no longer truly
one of their own. At the annual Algemeiner Dinner in NYC, Weinstein
openly praised the Israelis and how they are willing to fight. He said he
loves Israel...and admires how the Israelis use weapons to protect themselves.
He contrasted the Israelis with the misfortune of the Jews in the Warsaw
Ghetto who did not, unfortunately, he said, have guns. Indeed, he
announced, as he had a few months previously, that he was in the midst of
preparing and making a movie about the Warsaw Ghetto. He loved fighting
Jews, he said.
Nothing irks and riles the N.Y. Times
more than someone who is a proud, vocal supporter of Israel, believes in Jews
fighting in their own defense, physically and with guns...especially if that
person is a liberal and Democrat. That cannot be allowed! And to
boot, equating Israel's efforts against the Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians
with the Warsaw Ghetto. They could never allow that. No way!
So they brought him down. They have dossiers on many they don't use
until they need to make an example.
According to your blog post,
Weinstein said he was temporarily going to stop making movies...in other words,
including the Warsaw Ghetto movie. That was the response they wanted, the
quid pro quo. And his repentance for abusing women was, get this, to work
against the NRA. That's his mea culpa? But you see, their problem
was his position on guns. So that's the mea
culpa. Sexual sins are forgiven if one agrees to work against gun
No, the Times was not being an equal
tormentor to all, rather setting an example to destroy one of their own who had
strayed too far from the reservation by supporting an armed and victorious
Israel. The Times despises a strong Israel as much as it hates Donald
Update. Ethel C. Fenig calls
our attention to a similar hypothesis from J.J. Gross in the Times of Israel.
Can it be because barely a month ago,
Weinstein announced his plan to direct a movie based on Leon Uris's epic Warsaw
Ghetto novel 'Mila 18'? Can it be because Weinstein, despite his bleeding heart
liberalism, despite his having shoveled truckloads of dollars into the Obama
coffers, despite his blind obeisance to the Clinton corruption machine, crossed
the Israel-hating Time's red line and declared himself a Zionist and a lover of
Israel? Had Weinstein instead come out in support of BDS is there a chance of a
snowball in hell that the Times would have taken the liberty of bringing down
such a lion of liberalism?