Posted Jan 09, 2021 by Michael L. Brown

For weeks we have been told to wait for the release of the smoking gun. The Kraken is about to be revealed. Everything is about to shift. The nation will be shocked. Well, things have changed in dramatic and shocking ways. But it was not the Kraken that came. It was the Crackdown.

Twitter has now banned President Trump for life. This really happened, right in front of our eyes. But that was just one part of the Crackdown.

Within hours, headlines had announced Twitter’s ban on Trump, along with other social media bans on Sidney Powell (she of the aforementioned Kraken promises), General Michael Flynn, and Steve Bannon. Along with this, Google and Apple cracked down on the Parler app, where many Twitter users had been fleeing.

The whole thing felt surreal, as if a violent takeover of your country was happening in front of your eyes and you could hear the troops getting closer to your home. When will they come knocking at your door?

To heighten our legitimate concerns of this ever-encroaching Big Tech censorship, all this took place just one day after former First Lady Michelle Obama called for Silicon Valley to ban Trump for life. Was there any connection between her “suggestion” and Twitter’s actions? (See here for my response to her call. She had made her appeal as some of these Internet giants, including Facebook and Instagram, had suspended Trump “at least” until the inauguration.)

In response to Twitter’s ban, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley tweeted, “Silencing people, not to mention the President of the US, is what happens in China not our country. #Unbelievable.” (As of this writing, Sunday, January 9, at 11:05 AM, ET, the tweet remains up, thankfully, with almost 50,000 likes.)

To be sure, there are legitimate questions to be asked about the limits of free speech. What if a platform was used by the radical left to post the addresses of pro-life leaders with instructions on how to kidnap their children and blow up their houses? Would that be legal, let alone ethical?

Conversely, what if a platform was used by the radical right to help plan last Wednesday’s siege of the Capitol, as Parler was allegedly used?

I do understand the magnitude of what happened in DC this past week. It was a monstrous event of massive proportions, playing right into a dangerous, hyper-nationalistic mentality that the president himself helped stoke. (See here for my real time radio commentary.)

Thousands of people joined in with the chaos and violence, not just a few rabble-rousing jokers. That’s why more than 50 police were injured and one was killed, Brian D. Sicknick, his head smashed with a fire extinguisher. That’s why there were four other deaths, including the tragic shooting of Ashli Babbit.

This was the moment some of these radical right-wingers were waiting for.

It’s time to take America back. Time to stop the steal, by any means. Time for a new American revolution, by force if need be.

To downplay the significance of the storming of the Capitol, with all our senior elected officials in the building, or to blame it all on Antifa agitators is to stick one’s head in the sand.

Personally, I have no doubt that President Trump’s incessant rhetoric for the last four years helped create this violent atmosphere. That is why I lay the ultimate blame at his feet, even though I assume that he, too, was mortified by what actually happened at the Capitol. (For all those who criticized me for always adding a caveat whenever I would praise Trump, this is why I did it. Words have consequences. His words, as president, have often been dangerously irresponsible.)

At the same time, the President called for calm and for law and order in the midst of the riots, issuing an excellent, conciliatory statement the next night. He was not willfully inciting violence, nor was there any indication that he was about to.

Still, Twitter decided to ban him, the most powerful man on the planet, for life. What, pray tell, is coming next?

This is one major reason that many of us voted for him in 2016 and 2020, seeing him as a real bulwark against this growing attack on our freedoms. With all his flaws, he would stand with us against Big Tech censorship and against other assaults on our liberties.

Now he is banned for good (although he clearly has plans to move to another, yet to be announced platform), and we have no idea where a Democrat-led government will take us next.

As for those who are convinced that the election was stolen, there is an even deeper sense of outrage coupled with helplessness. How can this be happening, they wonder, in broad daylight here in America?

The fact is that we do not know what is coming next, and we have good reason to be concerned.

But we do know these four things.

First, while the Internet giants are called the “masters of the universe,” there is only one Master of the Universe, and one day, every knee will bow to Him, be it willingly or unwillingly. Let us never lose sight of this. If God is for us, who can be against us?

Second, we still have a voice. Let’s raise it all the more now – with as much force as wisdom and with as much love as truth. To quote Prof. Jordan Peterson’s first Rule of Life, “Stand up straight with your shoulders back.” This is not the time to cower.

Third, everything will come to light one day. As Jesus told His disciples (in the context of them being persecuted and killed for their faith), “So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known” (Matthew 10:26). This brings us comfort in the here and now.

Fourth, what people mean for evil, God can use for good. To quote the words of Joseph, who was sold into slavery by his own brothers, “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Genesis 50:20).

In the midst of my very serious concerns I’m also feeling very excited. Something good can come out of this, so let’s keep looking up as we speak up. The gospel cannot be banned.


Sign Up or Login to post comments.


BW posted a comment · Jan 12, 2021
Swkh310 remember history won't "forget" all the reasons Trump ran for President ! stick that in your pipe and sMoKe it ! ______Obama opened the door and unveiled the way to Sodom-n-Gomorrah 2.0 just saying! "Obama"s world apology tour" just saying! so It is unequivocally Obama's Fault Trump ran for office ! You say it was not, could not be a course correction for America inspired by God! Then Obama inspired the "ORANGE" monster as you call him! who or what else could have been the reason!
BW posted a comment · Jan 11, 2021
Thank You Dr Brown! I welcome your point of view ! it is needed in this chaotic, vitriolic! angst filled season ! come Lord Jesus Come!
atdcross posted a comment · Jan 11, 2021
Another op-ed by Dr. Brown that disturbs me. Please, first read Dr. Brown before reading my comments, which I enter below; and if there is anywhere you discern I have misunderstood Dr. Brown, please comment. Thanks! ******************** I don’t think Dr. Brown realizes that he, respectfully, continues to talk from both sides of his mouth. While one can commend him for trying to be a reconciler, he comes out at least as I read him, Orwellian, revealing his bias for Trump at the cost of plain facts. Let me explain as best I can why I find that Dr. Brown’s article is doublethink and could only further confuse the issue.

(1) How can Dr. Brown support Trump’s continued presence in a social networking platform under the guise of 1st Amendment rights given Trump’s dishonest character and violent rhetoric? If Dr. Brown really believes, as he claims, that Trump is squarely to blame for the violence on Capitol Hill, he would agree with the “crackdown” to hamper Trump’s ability to continue his incitements to violence with the goal of overthrowing a duly performed and legal election. So while Dr. Brown denounces violence, he seeks to allow Trump to engage in stochastic terrorism under the banner of “free speech” via Twitter and other social platforms.

 (2) Dr. Brown, in my opinion, makes a false equivalency between booting Trump out of Twitter, saying it was “as if a violent takeover of your country was happening in front of your eyes”

 “As if”? We all had before our eyes, the radical right (not the radical left) attempting “a violent takeover of [our] country”! 

This was the whole reason why Trump was booted out. It was an attempted coup d'état, and to suggest it was anything less is dishonesty. The intent was clear and it was not bloodless: to overturn the election. Twitter was Constitutionally justified to ban Trump. And if others were mimicking Trump’s rhetoric, then it is necessarily incumbent on social platforms to ban them, also. The only thing that’s being taken over by Facebook and Twitter is the violent rantings of the delusional.

Booting Trump out of Twitter was justified; attempting a coup is not. How Dr. Brown compares one with the other is beyond me.

 So, while Dr. Brown supports Trump’s Constitutional right as president to incite violence against the U.S. government, he denies the right to follow through with those enticements. Go figure.

 (3) Dr Brown claims to understand “there are legitimate questions to be asked about the limits of free speech.”

Although few, the “Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment permits restrictions upon the content of free speech… including obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, and speech integral to criminal conduct.”

 Nevertheless, Dr. Brown wants to give Trump a mulligan, allowing him to transgress those limits and violate the intent of the Constitution with impunity.

 (4) What does it matter whether or not there was any “connection” between Twitter and Michelle Obama if the reason Trump was ousted is clearly justified (which it is)? Or, perhaps, Dr. Brown is suggesting that crying “Fire!” in a crowded movie theatre is protected speech. Besides, on a lesser note, if I’m not mistaken: (1) FB and Twitter are both private companies and have the right to set its policies of speech as they see fit, provided they do not transgress other government laws; and (2) the 1st Amendment of the Constitution protects against, strictly speaking, the government, not companies, censoring speech.

So, while Dr. Brown believes the Constitution protects its citizens from being censored, nevertheless, he suggests Trump’s Constitutional right to incite violence is included, even after the violence he sought occurred.

 (5) As far as Ambassador Nikki Haley’s tweet, she should have noted that a coup d'etat also “happens in China, not our country,” at least, it should not... but it has! (6) For Dr. Brown’s mere opinion that Trump was “mortified by what actually happened at the Capitol” and insist his call for calm was sincere belies Trump’s past and present character, speech, and actions.

 (7) Dr. Brown asked, “What if a platform was used by the radical left to post the addresses of pro-life leaders with instructions on how to kidnap their children and blow up their houses? Would that be legal, let alone ethical?” I ask, what if a platform was used by the radical right to foment a violent insurrection in order to force overturning an election that was proved to be secure and legal? (8) Although, Dr. Brown admits find that Trump’s “words, as president, have often been dangerously irresponsible,” he wants to give him a pass.

Dr. Brown might argue that Trump and his lackeys spoke metaphorically but would he allow that same kind of speech from a liberal?

 Let’s say after the 2016 elections a Black man, a member of the left-wing, shouted to the crowd of her supporters: “Fight for Hilary! Fight for Hilary! Fight for Hilary! Overturn the election or you’ll see some really bad things happen.” Would Dr. Brown interpret that as metaphorical?
 Or would the climate in which it is stated and the liberal's known character –– hopefully, not the color of his skin –– have something to do with how his speech is interpreted? (9) Dr. Brown wonders why, after Trump made his speech calling for calm, he was banned. That’s easy to answer. It’s because he continued to post claims of a fraud election. Trump was only continuing to instigate violence. (10) Dr. Brown asserts, “To downplay the significance of the storming of the Capitol, with all our senior elected officials in the building, or to blame it all on Antifa agitators is to stick one’s head in the sand,” and I agree. Nevertheless, he also seems to play the ostrich 
by wanting to give Trump a forum to continue inciting violence, thereby downplaying the significance of the insurrection at the Capitol. In conclusion, for my part and respectfully, I don’t believe Dr. Brown’s criticisms of Trump and claims of his being objective can be taken seriously precisely because of his caveats, praises, and mulligans given to Trump; by them he renders his criticisms and denunciations as tepid, at best, if not doublethink –– “the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them” –– at worse.
 I find Dr. Brown supports someone who is obviously not only dangerous for the integrity of America’s Constitutional democracy, freedom, and values, but for American lives and, looking to the long haul, he is a threat to genuine Christianity.
 That’s why I end this with Proverbs 28:23, one of Dr. Brown’s “life-theme” verses: “Whoever rebukes a person will in the end gain more favor than one who has a flattering tongue.”
 Not that I care for men’s favor or flattery, but I say to Dr. Brown, “I do not rebuke you. But I do make an appeal. Just as I take constructive criticism to heart and say, ‘Lord, is it true?’, I encourage you” –– and anyone else who takes Dr. Brown’s words without careful reflection –– “to do the same.” Psalm 1:1
user profile
RAS posted a comment · Jan 10, 2021
I'm not a good proof reader, even why I try. It should say: "...Christ will come, if not at this moment, NOT too far off in the future. " My "n" key doesn't always work.
user profile
RAS posted a comment · Jan 10, 2021
The four things you mention to remember are indeed important. I believe Christ will come, if not at this moment, to too far off in the future. As the Apostle Paul stated: 5 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. 2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. 4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. 5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. 6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. 7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.
user profile
Bekalc posted a comment · Jan 09, 2021
Well I was always concerned that Trump and his actions would lead to a crackdown. The President incited a mob. A mob who tried to overturn our election. Think the other side isnt going to react? And how many Trump supporters arent willing to listen to anyone who says this election wasnt stolen. That the must abide by the courts. I voted for Trump this time but i was seriously concerned. And now i think good because he has no respect for the rule of law or order. Hillary supporters had concerns about her election too. That election was closer. But Clinton conceded right away for the good of the country and her followers didnt storm the capitol. There is nothing pro life about any of this and the reality is the alternative to elections its war and i dont want that and then we will really lose our rights. To quote Edmund Burke “men of intemperate minds cannot be free their passions form their fetters.” His point if folks are not willing to restrain themselves listen to reason sound counsel. Someone will restrain them.
czarpaul posted a comment · Jan 09, 2021
For revolutionaries they sure didn't have a plan beyond some chaos and disruption. We are headed for a Reichstag moment that will ramp up this squelching of descent to levels even McCarthy never had! We are 1930's Germany. Question is is the American church likewise 1930's-40's Germany's church????? We will just sing louder as "those evil subhuman conservatives" are rounded up???? First they come for the conservatives.......