Trump Prophecy Movie Review

Last night I attended the first viewing of the movie “The Trump Prophecy.”

Having read the book by Mark Taylor and Mary Colbert, I was interested in seeing how the book was put on the screen. It’s a book that doesn’t have a lot of action, but is mostly descriptive. First, about Taylor’s life and the prophecies he received, followed by Colbert’s organizing of prayer groups for 2016 election victory.

About the first 40 minutes of the movie the story of Taylor’s career as a firefighter and subsequent PTSD is portrayed. He struggled with the emotional toll of the job, but also with dreams and demonic appearances that left him sleepless. With the support of his wife, Taylor finally found a doctor who helped him and that doctor led to another, the spouse of Mary Colbert.

To Colbert he provided his notes that document his encounters with “the Spirit of God” who told him that the man he just happened to hear on the TV would be a president. That man, of course, was Donald Trump and the year was 2011.

When 2012 came and no Trump and no Romney victory, Taylor began to doubt himself.

Suddenly we’re in 2015 and the Republican debates are raging. Taylor again doubts, but this is where the movie deviates from the book. None of Taylor’s other prophecies are described which leaves the first one hanging as a one-off and doesn’t support the premise of the movie.

In the book, Taylor detailed how the Spirit of God showed him the future by signs, such as the Triple Crown winner, the dates of events, the significance of WWII references, the problem with the Supreme Court, that there would be impeachment calls, increased prosperity and other interesting – and truly prophetic – events.

In the switch to the Colbert story of organizing national prayer chains, the movie also confuses the timeline and reactions. In reality, she began organizing before the Republican convention and the phone prayer chain accelerated after that. No one she contacted described doubts about Trump, but in the movie several, including her, express a disdain for his candidacy.

It’s as if they had to be politically correct to avoid offending anyone. Taylor writes that God had chosen Trump early as a tool to help right our nation. He left moralizing out of it.

Liberty University made the movie and the last 20 minutes or so, post election, are devoted to Americans showing photos of family members who served in the military (Oh, the toxic masculinity!) and various ministers commenting on the religious background of our Founders and the Constitution.

The film has one more showing in Memphis – 7 p.m. Thursday October 4 at Malco’s Paradiso. A crowd of about 50 people attended the showing, which is not bad considering it has had no publicity.

It would be much better to have read the book before seeing the movie because it does leave out key points of Taylor’s prophecies. That takes a lot of the significance out of the movie, but that is just my opinion.

And as I said in the book review, if you’re not coming from a faith background you might find it preposterous. If you do believe, you will not. I do. If you believe that God cares about our country and hears our prayers and this movie is confirmation.

Google Torpedoes Blackburn

Google really, really doesn’t like Senate candidate Marsha Blackburn and they want you to hate her, too. They even consider her a terrorist.

Breitbart came upon this information:

A senior software engineer at Google with responsibility for a key feature of Google’s search engine labeled Tennessee Senate candidate Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) a “violent thug” and a “terrorist,” who Google shouldn’t “negotiate” with, according to internal emails obtained by Breitbart News. The employee also defended the censorship of her campaign ads on social media.

The comments took place in an internal email discussion that began on June 19 this year. The topic of discussion was Rep. Blackburn’s Fox News op-ed of the same month, which urged Silicon Valley companies to address bias against conservatives on their platforms. Blackburn, who has herself been the target of social media censorship, has been a vocal critic of tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Twitter during her time in Congress.

The op-ed was not well received within the corridors of Silicon Valley power. One Google employee, a site reliability engineer, called Blackburn’s piece “hilarious” and said Republicans are becoming “tribalists focused on stirring up outrage to maintain power.”

Blake Lemoine, a senior software engineer at Google, was harsher in his comments. Saying the public is being “lied to” by Blackburn, he went on to accuse the Tennessee representative of “causing the deaths of people she claimed to protect” — something he attributed to her work on the anti-trafficking bills FOSTA and SESTA.

“We certainly shouldn’t acquiesce to the theatrical demands of a legislator who makes political hay by intentionally reducing the safety of the people who she claims to protect,” said Lemoine. “I’m not big on negotiation with terrorists.”

When another Google employee objected to his use of the word “terrorist,” Lemoine responded that he’d be “willing to go with ‘thug’ as a compromise.”

“Would you be more okay with characterizing it as not being big on acceding to the demands of violent thugs?” asked Lemoine.

“This is a woman who passed a bill that killed people and is trying to use her passage of that bill to intimidate people. It’s clear to me that “do what I say or I’ll pass more bills like this one” is the implicit message.”

Lemoine is named in this story because he occupies a key position in the company’s influential search team, as a technical lead on Google’s search feed, formerly known as Google Now. The Google feed’s most distinctive feature is that it sends information to users proactively, using personal data to predict what information users want before they search for it.

According to Lemoine’s LinkedIn, he also works on “research pertaining to fairness and bias in machine learning,” making his own biased comments particularly relevant.

Lemoine also indicated that he supports censorship on social media: he defended Twitter’s decision to temporarily censor one of Rep. Blackburn’s pro-life campaign ads on the platform, arguing that the takedown was not, in fact, censorship.

“Taking down libel is not censorship,” said Lemoine.

He went on to say “I think that believing that Twitter too it down because it was a lie is more reasonable than believing they took it down because she was a Republican. Especially considering how the legislation that she is touting in her article was sold through lies that she told.”

“In summary: she’s a lying liar who lies and Twitter treats her like one”

Although Lemoine caveated himself by stating “not all Republican ads are lies,” a question that Lemoine did not address is whether his own bias affects what he sees as “lies,” and whether that bias affects the decisions he makes in his role overseeing a key element of Google search.

Responding to a request for comment from Breitbart News, a Google spokeswoman directed us to an open letter to employees written by CEO Sundar Pichai and reported in the press last month following Breitbart’s release of the Google tape. In it, Pichai said “We do not bias our products to favor any political agenda. The trust our users place in us is our greatest asset and we must always protect it.”

Marsha Blackburn’s campaign spokesman, Abbi Sigler, provided the following statement: “These emails are despicable. Marsha Blackburn is a mother, a grandmother, a friend, a dedicated public servant, a pro-life champion, an ally for veterans, and an advocate for lowering our taxes and cutting regulation. To call her a terrorist is offensive and degrading. These emails are indicative of the bias conservative women in the political arena face every day. Liberals do not want them to have a voice in the public arena, and too many social media employees carry their bias to work with them.”

Independent research acknowledged even by the anti-Trump Washington Post, found that Google search results tended to favor Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. Research conducted prior to the 2016 election also found that if Google deliberately skewed its search results to favor particular candidates, it could shift the votes of undecided voters by margins of 20 percent or more. Lead researcher Dr. Robert Epstein also says that Google could potentially manipulate its search results without leaving a paper trail, as there is currently no system of monitoring or oversight to detect bias in the platform’s hyper-personalized search functions.

Beyond Google, other tech platforms are affecting elections in more transparent ways. Over the past two years, major figures in the conservative, populist, and pro-Trump movements have been banned from platforms like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and both the Google and Apple app markets, severely hampering their ability to digitally mobilize their supporters ahead of crucial midterm elections in November this year. Multiple conservatives have also been kicked off payment processing and crowdfunding platforms, crippling their ability to fundraise for campaigns and causes. Despite this, Democrats continue to call the tech censorship a “conspiracy theory.”

Rep. Marsha Blackburn is currently running in a tight two-way race against her Democratic opponent Phil Bredesen in Tennessee. Even minor bias on the part of tech companies could easily tilt the race against her — unless her voters turn out in high enough numbers to nullify such bias. The threat from big tech notwithstanding, Blackburn continues to be a vocal critic of Silicon Valley’s failings, including political bias and failures to protect privacy. In June, Blackburn came out in favor of new regulation to protect consumers on social media platforms.

That is why you must vote and drag every Republican you know to the polls to support our candidates.

Trump in Memphis

The President will touch down here today at 5 p.m.

However, he will not stay here, but continue to Southaven for a fundraiser at 5:50, followed by a rally at the Landers Center arena.

The rally is to help Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith, who is running for the Senate. She was appointed to the Senate in April by Gov. Phil Bryant after Sen. Thad Cochran stepped down because of illness.

Her opponents include Republican Chris McDaniel and Democrat Mike Espy. In the Mississippi election if no one reaches 50% in November, there will be a runoff. It’s a tricky situation akin to the debacle in Alabama where the Republican split between Luther Strange and Roy Moore allowed Democrat Doug Jones to win the Senate seat.
This rally had been scheduled earlier, but Hurricane Florence hit at the same time so it was postponed.
The other Senator, Republican Roger Wicker, will also be on the ballot in his own race.

The rally is expected to conclude about 7:45 and Trump will depart then and arrive back at the White House at 11:20 Eastern time.

Although Trump’s exact route hasn’t been released, Southaven police expect heavy traffic on I55 and Church Road before and after the event. You might want to avoid that area along with Airways Boulevard.

Dem Gets Platform at GOP Meeting

A week or so ago, I received a card in the mail advising me to vote “NO” on all November 6th referenda.

The only one they mentioned concerned instant runoff voting. The card listed IRV supports: Senator John McCain and “Conservative national columnist David Brooks.”

Other supporters, who actually want instant runoff voting, include County Commissioner Steve Basar, League of Women voters of Memphis, Memphis Commercial Appeal, Libertarian Party, Myron Lowery and County Commission candidate Sam Goff.

Not exactly redstate MAGA people. As a Republican and a conservative, I am not persuaded by the “experts: listed on the card.

I have written about the dangers of instant runoff voting, which you can search for on this site, and will do more shortly.

Then this morning on the ShelbyGOP weekly email, Trunkline, I see that the Midtown Republican Club meeting this Tuesday will feature Steve Mulroy to discuss this referendum and others.

Mulroy, if you’ll recall, is a Democrat. He was on the County Commission and ran for Shelby County mayor in 2014. He is a professor of law at the U of M.

He probably does know a lot about the referenda, but first and foremost he’s a Democrat and views everything from that perspective.

For example, Mulroy’s been on TV touting the Russia dossier anti Trump narrative; gun control after the Las Vegas shooting; he’s been a tough critic on Jeff Sessions when he visited Memphis to try to stop our rampant crime; an advocate for a living wage; and staunchly progressive in every area.

Why would I want to even consider what he says on important issues, given his rigid Democrat/progressive/liberal beliefs? That side doesn’t want us to win anywhere any time and are always plotting to undermine Republicans.

Surely someone from the GOP side could discuss these issues at the Midtown Republican club meeting.

Whenever we reach across the aisle, it hasn’t ended well for Republicans. It’s nice to be bipartisan, but it’s a fairly tale.

How They Drive the News

On July 15, right before the August county mayoral election, the CA ran a front page Sunday edition story of the two candidates, Republican David Lenoir and Democrat Lee Harris.

It was blatantly partisan. It contrasted the two candidates. Lenoir’s background was highlighted. We were told his wife said he was “serially unfaithful, gambling illegally, and having a drinking and drug problem.” I wrote at the time, “The only things missing were pornography and pedophilia. He and his wife were divorcing, we are told, and it was ugly.”

The CA mentioned that he had a complete turnaround, overcoming his problems through a renewed love of Christ and a recommitment to his marriage.

But, for Lee Harris we were told, “The home? Spotless. Trousers? Hung on the appropriate hanger. The drapes? Closed at night. The car? Washed. And polished. This was Lee Harris’ upbringing.”

The tone was set right there. After learning about his education achievements and how wonderful a person he is – so they emphasized – the CA continued:

“One trait he’s backed off on: Being neat, at least during the campaign when it comes to his car, a 2003 Toyota 4Runner with a ‘check engine’ light lit up for years on the dashboard and some 200,000 miles now showing on the odometer.

“Pulling up in the driveway of his parents’ home, parking beside his mother’s Lexus, he knows they’ll fuss.

“They tell me, ‘Your car is all beat up and dusty. Why don’t you buy a new one?’ Harris said.”
This detail was the closer of the long article.

I found that to be manipulative and doubted this awe shucks, humble little me narrative.

As it turns out, Harris lives in Central Gardens. I have seen him get into his car several times as his more than half a million dollar house is on our morning walk’s path.

It’s funny, though, because I don’t see him getting into a clunker. He appears to have a very nice perhaps 2012 Toyoto Prius SUV. Also in in the driveway is a Ford SUV that is not a clunker either.

There’s no problem with people owning nice cars, but the deception on the media’s part – at least – is just part of the fake news we see all the time.

Who do I believe, them or my lying eyes?

What Ford’s Testimony Means

The great Victor Davis Hanson has succinctly summed up the Dr. Ford testimony on Brett Kavanaugh. It has terrible implications for our country.

The “process” of memorializing Ford’s testimony involved a strange inversion of constitutional norms: The idea of a statute of limitations is ossified; hearsay is legitimate testimony; inexact and contradictory recall is proof of trauma, and therefore of validity; the burden of proof is on the accused, not the accuser; detail and evidence are subordinated to assumed sincerity; proof that one later relates an allegation to another is considered proof that the assault actually occurred in the manner alleged; motive is largely irrelevant; the accuser establishes the guidelines of the state’s investigation of the allegations; and the individual allegation gains credence by cosmic resonance with all other such similar allegations.

How are people treated fairly in such a world?

Pray for Kavanaugh

Someone on Twitter under the name RedNationRising says that Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s wife, Ashley, has asked people to pray Psalms 40 today and tomorrow. Here it is:

I have waited, waited for the Lord, and he stopped toward me and heard my cry.
He drew me out of the pit of destruction, out of the mud of the swamp;
He set my feet upon a crag; He made firm my steps.
And He put a new song into my mouth, a hymn to our God. Many shall look on in awe and trust the Lord.
Happy the man who makes the Lord his trust; who turns not to idolatry or to those who stray after falsehood.
How numerous have you made, O Lord, my God, your wondrous deeds!
And in your plans for us there is none to equal you;
Should I wish to declare or to tell them, they would be too many to recount.
Sacrifice or oblation you wished not, but ears open to obedience you gave me. Holocausts or sin offerings you sought not;
then said I, “Behold I come; in the written scroll it is prescribed for me.
To do your will, O my God, is my delight, and your law is within my heart!”
I announced your justice in the vast assembly; I did not restrain my lips as you, O Lord, know.
Your justice I kept not hid within my heart; your faithfulness and your salvation I have spoken of;
I have made no secret of your kindness and your truth in the vast assembly.
Withhold not, O Lord, your compassion from me; may your kindness and your truth ever preserve me.
For all about me are evils beyond reckoning; my sins so overcome me that I cannot see;
They are more numerous than the hairs of my head and my heart fails me.
Deign, O Lord, to rescue me; O Lord, make haste to help me.
Let all be put to shame and confusion who seek to snatch away my life. Let them be turned back in disgrace who desire my ruin.
Let them be dismayed in their shame who say to me, “Aha, aha!”
But may all who seek you exult and be glad in you, And may those who love your salvation say ever, “The Lord be glorified!”
Though I am afflicted and poor, yet the Lord thinks of me.
You are my help and my deliverer; O my God, hold not back!

Grassley’s Motives

Yesterday I refused to blame Senator Grassley for the poor performance of the Republican prosecutor in the Ford/Kavanaugh hearings.

Sure, she was lukewarm tea, but I believe she kept the Republican Senators squeaky clean and free from Democrats being able to say they were insensitive to women.

Don Fischer at the American Spectator puts it well:

First, hidden behind the Democrats’ cynical charade of seeking “only the truth” is a huge tug of war between the parties over the suburban white female voter. The brilliance of having Rachel Mitchell, an experienced sex-crimes prosecutor, conduct the questioning of Christine Blasey Ford becomes more apparent in that light. The Democrats wanted the nation’s women to emerge appalled by the harsh mistreatment they hoped would unfold brutally as Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee presumably would tear into her story’s inconsistencies and uncertainties. Yes, the Charles Grassleys and Orrin Hatches would win litigation points, but they would lose undecided voters, particularly reasonable open-minded women. The GOP masterfully avoided that trap as Ms. Mitchell uncovered enough inconsistencies, curiosities, and uncertainties in Dr. Ford’s testimony to justify non-Resisters moving ahead with the Kavanaugh selection and voting Republican in November…
The Republicans lose little but can gain a great deal by demonstrating to middle-road and fair-minded women voters that the gang-attack anti-Kavanaugh depictions on CNN, MSNBC, and in other media are false. That Republicans are fair and reasonable. And that the GOP can go along with one more essentially pointless FBI investigation and background check. The Democrats cannot admit that what they really want is not an “FBI investigation” but really a song-without-an-end Robert Mueller investigation for the next two years — or three years, or four years — of a party whose location is not identified, whose date is unknown, whose reason is mysterious. A party that Christine Ford cannot explain. She cannot explain how she got there, how she got home from there. That is what the Democrats really want — even if it leads to nothing more than plea bargains in four years with Paul Manafort for his breaking and entering into the party to retrieve his ostrich-leather jacket. But the Democrats will not get that. Rather, they will get a week and their FBI investigation.

The ABA will be satisfied. Jeff Flake will be satisfied. Alan Dershowitz will be satisfied. Brett Kavanaugh will have had his seventh FBI clearance. Susan Collins will be covered. Joe Manchin will be covered. And that will be that — because, with all procedural requirements now concluded, if there is one thing on which you can bet the family farm it is that the Republicans are going to get that vote on that Senate floor finally cast before November 6. So thank you, Harry Reid, for ending the filibuster on federal judicial nominees.

Along the way, the Republicans have tip-toed past the pitfalls that loomed before the Ford inquiry. They elicited some key inconsistencies in her accounts without leaving her sobbing and weeping or them seeming to be ogres. Not a single sob sound-bite or screenshot emerged from hours of five-minute intervals. At the same time, they afforded Judge Kavanaugh a proper forum before a riveted nation to clear his name for those open to hearing his narrative without pre-judging the judge. Many in the Republican base now are energized as they were not before.

I do think Grassley should have called for a vote out of committee Thursday evening. He didn’t even do it early Friday, but that’s what we’re dealing with.

As difficult as it is to endure this – and I know it has been for me and scores of others – we have to do it.

After Trump won the election, we all knew we are/were facing it an epic battle between good and evil for the soul of the country. We knew it would have many challenging moments. This is one of them.

The country is worth it.
It has to be asked: are you more energized to go vote than before? Suburban white female voters will be. And not for the Democrats.