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.” https://abc7news.com/trump-violence-news-supporters-us-capitol-riots/9528818/ Psalm 1:1

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.