1

Biden Appointee Sam Brinton a Fetishist, Liar and Thief

Biden’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Office of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition, the notoriously creepy Sam Brinton, is in the news again and again for all the wrong reasons. Correction: Brinton finally lost his job on Monday after not one but two luggage thefts at two airports: one in Las Vegas and one in Minneapolis. His luggage of choice is women’s luggage where can be found women’s jewelry, undergarments, and clothing.

Brinton is the cross-dressing fetishist who engages in and teaches about perverse sexual practices under the heading of the “physics of kink” in which he discusses “wax play,” bondage, spanking, and “electro play.”

According to the Daily Mail, Brinton’s bio on one pervert site says he has “‘been active in the kink world since 2013’” and hosts “‘monthly kink parties in’” his “‘dungeon in Washington, DC,’” in which Brinton estimates he has “‘spanked over 2,000 cute butts.’”

In a summary of one of his many sex talks to college students, this one at Rensellaer Polytechnic Institute in 2017, a student wrote this about Biden pick Brinton:

[Brinton] left us with countless anecdotes, like how he enjoys tying up his significant other like a table, and eating his dinner on him while he watches Star Trek. Upon being asked about how long he knew he was into kink, he explained that it wasn’t necessarily from birth, but that his kinks manifested in nonsexual ways. Once he started having sex, he got bored with the idea that he couldn’t control the whole experience, which led him to the idea of domination. He also expanded on his experiences with pup play, the differences between kinks and fetishes, and how to safely choke one’s partner.

We then moved onto demonstrations. Brinton taught us about bondage, starting with wrist restraints and ending with harnesses. … He also passed out ropes to the audience and encouraged us to practice on each other.

When the demonstrations ended, he invited us to come play with his toys or talk to him more. The entire audience went up to the stage, and Brinton graciously explained the purpose and proper usage of each toy. He even demonstrated the use of a carbon fiber rod on those who were interested, and the marks he left on my arm lasted for a few days. He told us more stories, some about working in Washington, D.C., the few times he helped Michelle Obama pick out shoes, his efforts to end conversion therapy, and his experiences as a dominatrix.

Biden, who selected Brinton years after this kind of information was easily available online, hasn’t yet met a sexual perversion he doesn’t love. Let’s pause a moment to reflect on the political party that chooses someone to serve in the the government–not despite his commitment to perversion–but because of it. We’ve come a long, twisted way from George Washington and James Madison.

In addition to larceny, Brinton has mastered the dark art of lying. He lied to law enforcement multiple times about his purloining of luggage in Minneapolis. Those who have followed Brinton’s unceasing quest for media attention have been surprised by his thievery but not by his lying. He is an inveterate, pathological liar.

Brinton first identified as “gay,” but now his immutable “sexual orientation” has changed, and he—er, I mean “they”—identify as bisexual. His “gender identity” has been variously reported as gender fluid and nonbinary, which should be mutually exclusive. If one is gender fluid, one flows back and forth between genders. If one is nonbinary, one is neither male nor female. As the kids say, whatever. “Logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead.”

The 35-year-old Brinton, who is pretend-married to a man, demonstrates his nonbinariness by combining men’s and women’s clothing—thereby reflecting the binariness of his nonbinary identity.

While Brinton “completed a dual Master of Science degree program at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in nuclear engineering and the technology and policy program,” he is better known—or, rather, infamous for—his nationwide crusade to make what he deceitfully calls “conversion therapy” illegal. So fanatically committed is Brinton to this crusade that he has sashayed all about the country lying about it.

Brinton has claimed that he was a victim of torture via “conversion therapy”—the term those tricksy homosexual activists prefer—but his allegations suffer from shape-shifting and lack of proof.

For example, in 2010 Brinton alleged that just before seventh grade, he was sent to “conversion therapy” where his hands were tied down and “blocks of ice were placed” on his hands while pictures of men holding hands “were shown” to him.

By 2014 when he testified before the U.N.’s Committee on Torture, his story (and delivery) had changed. He still claimed that his hands were tied down and blocks of ice were placed on them, but he wasn’t shown pictures of men holding hands. Oh, no, in this incarnation of his story he was shown “erotic pictures of men.” Additionally, he claimed the torturous therapy occurred when he was ten years old.

When he testified before the U.N. committee at age 26, he was choking back faux-tears even though he’d been telling this story publicly for years. But four years earlier when he was 22, no tears, not a voice quiver to be heard.

Depending on the context, Brinton has alleged that he was either 10 or 12, when he was tortured by “a doctor,” or “not a doctor,” or a “religious therapist,” or a “licensed psychotherapist.” And at various points, he has claimed he was in this torturous therapy for “two to three years,” and yet he says he cannot recall the name of this therapist.

In addition to painful ice treatment, Brinton claims copper heating coils were wrapped around his hands and the heat turned on, “tiny needles” were “stuck into” his fingers, and that he received “electric shocks” by the nameless therapist. Even homosexuals doubt his story.

Btw, this kind of therapy is accurately called “aversion therapy”—not conversion therapy. And no licensed therapists do it on anyone, let alone children.

Talk therapy that seeks to uncover reasons for disordered, unwanted feelings and dysfunctional behaviors is called counseling.

Brinton also claims that prior to torture therapy, he was taken to the emergency room seven times from beatings by his father that—Brinton claims—his parents said were from accidental falls. If that happened, surely there would be records of his emergency room visits. His mother denies all of Brinton’s claims about abuse at his father’s hands.

Brinton squealed his delight when he was appointed by Biden to the position he has now lost:

I’ll even be (to my knowledge) the first gender fluid person in federal government leadership. … You cannot fathom how excited I am. … so so so excited.

While the crossdressing, glittery, ruby stiletto-wearing Brinton was squealing about his new appointment, the oppressive regime in China could see our soft bellies exposed for the death stroke.

Kinda makes sense that our corrupt prevaricating president would appoint a corrupt prevaricator to a high-level government post. #BirdsOfAFeather





How Did Hollywood Get So ‘Woke’?

Why do so many members of the Hollywood elite espouse such radical, leftist causes? Why are they so pro-abortion, so pro-queer activism? Why are they so passionate about saving trees and caring for cows? How and why did Hollywood become so “woke”?After [this year’s] Oscars, the Daily Mail ran this lengthy headline: “And the award for the most self-righteous Oscars acceptance speech goes to . . . Joaquin Phoenix lectures about animal rights, Brad Pitt slams impeachment trial and Obama documentary director urges ‘workers of the world to unite.’”

What? “Joaquin Phoenix launched a passionate speech about animal rights, veganism and Speciesism” while the director of an Obama documentary quoted Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto? The elite, the mega-rich, and the powerful called for the uprising of the oppressed working class?

Other tag lines in the Mail included:

  • Hair Love creator Matthew Cherry advocated for the Crown Act, a California law that prohibits discrimination based on hair style or texture, in his speech
  • American Factory co-director Julia Reichert – who is fighting terminal cancer – quoted from the Communist Manifesto
  • Janelle Monae opened the show by declaring herself a ‘proud’, ‘black queer artist telling stories’
  • Sigourney Weaver declared: ‘All women are superheroes’ when she presented an award

Yes, Hollywood has been “woke” for many years now, fashioning itself to be the prophetic voice of conscience. And, the truth be told, many in Hollywood are passionate about their causes, from animal rights to climate change, and from same-sex “marriage” to immigration.

In other words, for many of them (if not most; only God knows), this is not just a show. They truly believe they are in the right. They truly believe conservative religion is damaging people’s lives. They truly believe we are destroying the planet.

To quote Joaquin Phoenix at length,

“I think whether we’re talking about gender and equality, or racism, or queer rights, or indigenous rights, or animal rights, we’re talking about the fight against injustice. We’re talking about the fight against the belief that one people, one race, one gender, one species has the right to dominate, control, use, and exploit another with impunity.”

Not only so, but, “We go into the natural world and plunder it of its resources. We feel entitled to artificially inseminate a cow and then steal her baby, even though her cries of anguish are unmistakable.”

So, pity the poor baby cow (after all, it is a living creature), but rip those human clumps of cells out of their mother’s wombs. This is the hypocrisy of Hollywood.

But this doesn’t answer two fundamental questions. First, why is this segment of the population so outspoken about social and political issues? Why do they claim to care so much? Second, why have they taken up positions on the extreme left with issue after issue?

Obviously, we can only speak in general terms, since Hollywood is not a monolith. But perhaps the answer to the first question is simply this: Everyone in Hollywood is involved with producing movies. Most movies carry a message. So, the people involved see themselves as messengers.

The editor of a major newspaper once told me that many journalists see themselves as having a prophetic role. They do not just report the news. They challenge injustice. They seek to correct wrongs. Consequently, some of their writing will reflect a particular bias.

Perhaps, in the same way, as actors play certain roles and screenwriters produce the scripts and directors oversee the process, they feel they are playing a prophetic role in the society. They are telling stories that need to be told. They are making social statements. Consequently, they themselves have something to say. (For my response to this, see here.)

But how, then, did their message become so slanted? Why a quotation from Karl Marx? Why the concern about inseminating a cow?

This, in my view, is the result of taking up causes from a me-centered perspective. (I would say “man-centered,” but that uses the dreaded “m” word. To say “human-centered” doesn’t seem to cut it as well.) In other words, rather than seeing things from God’s perspective, they see things from an earthly perspective.

So, rather than see the meaning of marriage as God intended it for human flourishing and the well-being of society, they see the “injustice” of two women not being allowed to marry.

That also means that see animals as equal to humans (since humans are not uniquely created in the image of God). They even see trees as equal to humans (and even better than humans, since trees are noble creatures that never hurt anyone).

As to how these views became so dominant in Hollywood, this would seem to reflect a process similar to that in our universities. Specifically, after the counterculture shift of the 1960s, an increasing number of leftist intellectuals and artists and cultural influencers rose to the top. And they now hold positions of dominance, effectively silencing and suppressing those who dissent.

Interestingly, though, many “common people” – the proletariat, if you will – are not having it. As the Mail also reported, “while the well-heeled crowd at the Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles applauded their speeches, their ‘lectures’ nauseated the audience at home.

“Many viewers took to Twitter to slam the stars as ‘hypocrites’ and called the event the ‘wokest Oscars ever’.”

Perhaps a little too “woke” for the tastes of many?

Personally, I can appreciate how gifted many of these actors and writers and cinematographers and directors are.

I can appreciate the sacrifices some of them make for their trade (in other words, their riches come with a price).

I can even appreciate their concern for the environment (within reason) and their compassion for animals (again, within reason).

But when wokeness means quoting Marx, celebrating queerness, and caring more for baby cows than for baby humans, then I have a simple message. Hollywood, you need a spiritual awakening. You are not yet truly woke.


This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.



Seven Reasons Why the Transgender Revolution Will Fail

I earnestly hope and pray that every child and adult struggling with gender identity issues will find wholeness, peace, and happiness from the inside out. I earnestly hope and pray that we will live to see the day when every person who feels trapped inside the wrong body will find internal resolution without hormones and radical surgery. At the same time, I wholeheartedly oppose the transgender revolution and predict that, ultimately, it will fail. Here’s why.

1) The transgender revolution is oppressive. As reported on July 16 on Lifesite News, “Failing to refer to a gender-confused student, professor, or staffer by his or her ‘preferred’ pronouns could become a fireable or expulsion-worthy offense at the University of Minnesota, according to proposed guidelines currently under consideration.”

It is not enough to allow a biological male to identify as a female. Hardly. Society must conform, or else. If “he” now identifies as “she” (or “xe” or “ze”) and you fail to use the right pronoun, you will be punished.

This is already the law in New York City. And Canada has taken steps to make this kind of enforced speech the law across the country.

This cannot succeed in the long-term. Society will push back.

2) The transgender revolution is irrational. As a result of trans activism, tampons are now available in some college campus bathrooms. After all, we are told, men menstruate as well!

Yes, a woman who identifies as a man but still gets her monthly period is actually a menstruating man.

And we are supposed to believe this nonsense? We are supposed to shake our heads and say, “How quaint”? I don’t think so.

Recently, however, trans activists have taken things to a new depth of irrationality. Men who identify as women have declared that they get their periods too – just differently! So, other biological realities must now be redefined as well, and a monthly cycle is no longer a physical event.

To quote a “trans girl” directly: “Nobody teaches trans girls about our periods. We just get these weird times where we’re moody and crampy and sad and we don’t know why and just chalk it up to another reason we’re not good enough in life.

“So, just so you all know: Trans. Girls. Get. Periods.”

Enough said. This is beyond irrational.

3) The transgender revolution is unhealthy. Trans advocates tell us that failure to diagnose and treat gender dysphoria will result in depression, suicide, or other forms of self-harm. And I’m sure that, in some cases, post-hormone and post-surgery, many individuals are more satisfied with their quality of life.

Others would point to the high percentage of suicides after surgery, along with the substantial number of people who experience sex-change regret.

But there’s more to be concerned about. A recent headline on a gay website announced, “Hormone therapy linked to dangerous health issues in trans women.” Yes, “Researchers set out to examine heart and circulatory health in transgender people, and found that transgender women face a greater chance of strokes, heart attacks, and blood clots compared to their non-transgender counterparts.”

And what about kids who are put on hormone blockers before puberty, then put on a life-long regimen of hormonal therapy? What will the ill effects be?

4) The transgender revolution is extreme. Scarlett Johansson, one of the biggest female names on the big screen, recently felt the wrath of transgender activists, withdrawing from her starring role as a trans man after protests. How dare a female actor play the role of a trans man when there are plenty of trans men who can play the role.

But isn’t this what actors do? It’s one thing for a white man to paint his face in order to play the role of a black man.

But actors act. They play all kinds of roles that are unrelated to their private lives. They play villains and thieves. They play athletes and politicians. They play liars and saints, good guys and bad guys. They play super heroes and super criminals. They play aliens and vampires. And all that is acceptable – unless they play a trans person.

Enough said.

5) The transgender revolution is dangerous. When you insist that a biological male who identifies as a female has the “right” to use a women’s bathroom, locker room, and dressing room, you are asking for trouble.

A headline from England stated, “Transgender prisoner who was put in a female jail despite not having sex-change surgery ‘sexually assaulted four women inmates before being moved to a male prison’.”

So, a biological male with male organs intact (and obviously, still attracted to women) was put in a women’s prison. Should we be surprised by what happened?

In the States, Planet Fitness sided against a female, former sexual assault victim who protested against the presence of a man (identified here as “Mr. Rice”) in the locker room. As explained in the case being brought by Liberty Counsel, “This is not the only incident with Mr. Rice known to Planet Fitness. Another woman reported that he exposed his naked body to her in the women’s locker room at this location. In another instance, he was involved in an argument with another woman over use of the tanning room. Misogynist, anti-woman harassment should have no place in Planet Fitness locations, and violates Florida law.”

6) The transgender revolution is unnatural. There are fundamental, undeniable differences between men and women, which is why there is an increasing pushbackagainst biological males competing against biological females.

Even among some feminists and lesbians, there is resistance to trans women being accepted as females. And it is for good reason. A biological male will never be a female.

7) The transgender revolution is an attack on children. Trans advocates would tell us that they are helping children, that they are saving them many years of grief and pain and confusion. In reality, for every child they might help (and even at that, in a temporary, non-holistic way) they are confusing many more children — innocent, tender kids.

As the Daily Mail asked, “Are children as young as 11 really capable of making life-changing decisions about their gender?”

We are playing with fire here, and there will likely be many, many casualties before we wake up.

There is much more that could be said, but here’s a final reflection. For decades now, billions of dollars have been invested to discover a cure for cancer. Chemotherapy is not sufficient. Radiation treatment only goes so far. Other “cures” fall short of the mark.

In the same spirit, let us continue to pursue better treatments for those diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Surely there is a better way than hormone blockers for children, double mastectomies and sex-change surgery for older teens, and hormones for life.

Let’s work toward this while firmly resisting the transgender revolution. We owe it to our kids and grandkids.


This article was originally published at Townhall.com.




Sharia No No-Go Zones? Really?

The Leftist media and Islamic supremacist groups have been doing a victory dance ever since Saturday night, when Fox News issued an apology for statements made on the air by terror expert Steve Emerson and others about Muslim no-go zones in Britain and France. However, the apology doesn’t say what it has widely reported as saying – and there is considerable evidence that Muslim areas in both countries are a growing law enforcement and societal problem.

Fox Report host Julie Banderas stated:

Over the course of this last week we have made some regrettable errors on air regarding the Muslim population in Europe, particularly with regard to England and France. Now, this applies especially to discussions of so-called ‘no-go zones,’ areas where non-Muslims allegedly aren’t allowed in and police supposedly won’t go.

To be clear, there is no formal designation of these zones in either country and no credible information to support the assertion there are specific areas in these countries that exclude individuals based solely on their religion.

There are certainly areas of high crime in Europe as there are in the United States and other countries — where police and visitors enter with caution. We deeply regret the errors and apologize to any and all who may have taken offense, including the people of France and England.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s joyous headline read: “Fox News admits ‘no-go zones’ are fantasy.” The far-Left Crooks and Liars blog exulted: “Fox Pundits Finally ‘Apologize’ After A Week Of Being Mocked For ‘No Go Zones’ Claim.” More restrained but still unmistakably gleeful was the New York Times: “Fox News Apologizes for False Claims of Muslim-Only Areas in England and France.” The Leftist media has seized on Fox’s apology to declare that there are aren’t any no-go zones in France or Britain – and by extension that there is no problem with Muslim populations in Europe. NewHounds’s summation was typical: “Fox News has become the laughingstock of Europe this week as first England and then France lampooned its ignorant, Islamophobic reporting.”

The only problem with all the cork popping around Fox’s apology was that there is a problem with Muslim areas in Europe – and the Fox apology didn’t go so far as to say there wasn’t. To be sure, the controversy began with undeniably inaccurate statements from Emerson. He said on Fox on January 11 that “there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in.” That is false, and Emerson has acknowledged that and apologized.

However, Emerson was not guilty of fabrication, just of overstatement. Some of the comments on a piece in the UK’s Daily Mail about his gaffe and British Prime Minister David Cameron’s reaction to it (he called Emerson a “complete idiot”) insisted that Emerson was at least partially right: “Just shows cameron doesn’t even know what is happening in this country , as the news presenter is totally correct , its a no go zone .” “There ARE some parts of Birmingham where you darent or shouldn’t go !” “Is he far off the truth? Maybe it’s not true for Birmingham as a whole but there are certain areas where it is true. Certainly it is true of certain other Towns in the UK. Bradford, Leicester, Luton spring to mind.”

Fox’s apology stated that,

“To be clear, there is no formal designation of these zones in either country and no credible information to support the assertion there are specific areas in these countries that exclude individuals based solely on their religion.”

That says as much as it says, and no more. It says that neither the British nor the French government has designated any areas to be no-go zones where non-Muslims aren’t allowed in, and that there is no evidence that non-Muslims are not allowed into any areas in either country.

But this carefully worded statement does not actually say that there aren’t areas in Britain or France in which non-Muslims are menaced for not adhering to Islamic law. That is a real and abundantly documented problem. Emerson pointed to it when he said:

“In parts of London, there are actually Muslim religious police that actually beat and actually wound, seriously, anyone who doesn’t dress according to Muslim, religious Muslim attire.”

While Emerson’s implication that this was an ongoing phenomenon was false, there were indeed such Sharia enforcers in London between 2011 and 2013. In July 2011, the UK’s Daily Mail reported:

“Islamic extremists have launched a poster campaign across the UK proclaiming areas where Sharia law enforcement zones have been set up. Communities have been bombarded with the posters, which read: ‘You are entering a Sharia-controlled zone – Islamic rules enforced.’”

In December 2013, members of one of these self-styled “Muslim patrols” were imprisoned; according to the Guardian, in London they

“harassed people, berating them with shouts of ‘this is a Muslim area!’ They forced men to dump their alcoholic drinks, instructed women on the appropriate way to dress, and yelled insults at those they perceived to be gay.”

They didn’t just berate people; as Emerson said, they beat them. In YouTube videos, they threatened to do so, saying: “We are coming to implement Islam upon your own necks.” In June 2013, Muslims attacked an American who was drinking on the street, grabbing the bottle out of his hands and smashing him in the eye with it, causing permanent injury. In August 2013, according to the Daily Mail, “two brothers in law who went on a sponsored walk wearing comedy mankinis had to be picked up by police – after they were pelted with stones and eggs by residents who told them ‘this is a Muslim area’ and demanded they leave.”

A “Muslim area” – maybe even a “no-go zone.” Not in the sense that non-Muslims are barred from entering, but in that, if they do enter, they have to adhere to Sharia restrictions.

The Fox apology is all the more curious in light of the fact that others, even on the Left, have noticed the no-go zones in France before some Fox commentators began talking about them in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. David Ignatius wrote in the New York Times in April 2002:

“Arab gangs regularly vandalize synagogues here, the North African suburbs have become no-go zones at night, and the French continue to shrug their shoulders.”

Newsweek, hardly a conservative organ, reported in November 2005 that

“according to research conducted by the government’s domestic intelligence network, the Renseignements Generaux, French police would not venture without major reinforcements into some 150 ‘no-go zones’ around the country–and that was before the recent wave of riots began on Oct. 27.”

The police wouldn’t venture into these areas without major reinforcements in 2005. Does anyone really think that the situation has improved in the intervening years?

And the day after the Charlie Hebdo massacre set off Fox’s discussions of no-go zones in France, the reliably Leftist New Republic wrote:

“The word banlieue (‘suburb’) now connotes a no-go zone of high-rise slums, drug-fueled crime, failing schools and poor, largely Muslim immigrants and their angry offspring.”

So something the New York Times noted in 2002 and Newsweek in 2005, and that the New Republic reported was still a problem in January 2015, is now something that Fox News has to apologize for discussing?

Clearly there is a problem in these areas. Two of the three Charlie Hebdo murderers were born and raised in France. Where did they get their ideas about killing blasphemers? Not from French schools. They learned them in the Muslim areas where they were born and raised. What’s more, France leads the West in the number of Muslims who have traveled from there to wage jihad for the Islamic State, with well over a thousand Muslims leaving France to join the caliphate. Where did they get their understanding of Islam?

In objecting to Fox’s coverage, the French government objected to claims that these areas were outside their control and subject to Sharia, but it is obvious that whatever control they do have over these areas is not enough to prevent the indoctrination of all too many young Muslims into the jihad ideology.

There needs to be a balanced, honest public discussion of these Muslim areas in Britain and France. The controversy over what has been said on Fox in recent weeks only obscures the need for that discussion. And Fox’s apology, however carefully worded, only plays into the hands of Leftists and Islamic supremacists who have a vested interest in rendering people ignorant and complacent about the reality of what is going on in these areas.

So now would be a good time for Fox to apologize for its apology – and to devote extended attention to the Muslim areas of Britain and France, and shed light on what is really going on in them. That would be to provide a service far greater than the usual surface-scratching of television news.


This article was originally posted at the Front Page Magazine website.