Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Gog of Magog and His Allies (Ezekiel 38-39)

An interesting article from about Gog and Magog. This follows this post about Thanksgiving and Christmas. This follows this post about climate change. This follows this post about Star Wars. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
Please follow me here for continued posts.

Gog of Magog and His Allies (Ezekiel 38-39)

We come now to a remarkable prophecy, spanning chapters 38 and 39. It is God's message to Gog of Magog and his allies, who dwell far to the north of the Promised Land and of Ezekiel's place of exile in Babylon but will one day come down into the land of Israel with a vast invasion force. Notice that Gog's invasion will occur "after many the latter the latter days" (38:8, 16). So we are clearly dealing with an end-time prophecy.
Before more specifically examining the time factor, let's look at the identities of the various peoples mentioned.
"Gog, of the land of Magog," is called the "prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal" (verses 2-3; 39:1). He is allied with "Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya" (verse 5)-or, as Ezekiel actually wrote, "Peras, Cush and Put" (Living Bible)-as well as "Gomer and...the house of Togarmah" (verse 6).
Most of these names can be found in the Table of Nations of Genesis 10, which lists the families of humanity descended from Noah. Notice: "Now this is the genealogy of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And sons were born to them after the flood. The sons of Japheth were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. The sons of Gomer were Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah.... The sons of Ham were Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan...." (verses 1-2, 6 emphasis added).
Notice that Gog is not mentioned here. That may be because the name Magog actually means "land of Gog"-so that perhaps the actual son of Japheth was named Gog and the nation he founded became known as Magog. The name Gog could in a later context designate anyone who was from the land of Gog (i.e., from Magog).
The first-century Jewish historian Josephus wrote: "Magog founded those that from him were named Magogites, but who by the Greeks were called Scythians" (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, chap. 6, sec. 2). The name Scythians denoted a wide array of peoples who ranged across the Russian Steppes all the way into China. (The Western Scythians were heavily Israelite and Germanic in nationality.)
One researcher writes of the Eastern-ranging Scythians: "The Assyrians called them Mat Gugi (Ma-Gog) which means 'the country of Gog'.... Let Milner, famous for his writings on the Japhetic races, add further to our understanding: 'Magog, as a geographical term used by Hebrews of old and Arabs today (Majaj), denoted that vast stretch of country to the north of the Black Sea, Caucasus, Caspian Sea, Hindu Kush, and Altai, known to the Greek geographers as Skythia'....
"The term Mongol, sometimes written as Mongoul, appears to be directly derived from Magog. In India, for example, Mongol becomes Moghul and a large part of China was known as Mangi when Europeans first visited it. The Arabs called the Scythian tribes of Tartary Yajuj and Majuj which is Gog and Magog and the Great Wall of China as the 'wall of al Magog'....
"Where is Magog located today? They migrated via southern Russia to their current homeland, leaving behind such place-names as: Mogliev city, Mogiolistan, Mugojar Mountains, Mogol-Tau Mountains. Among the people of Mongolia, Inner Mongolia, central and much of northern and southern China...and even some Japanese are also descended from Magog. Here are the hundreds of millions of China today. No wonder the name of ancestor Japhet means 'expansion,' implying a large or expanding race. Other peoples descended from Magog [as well]" (Craig White, In Search of...The Origin of Nations, 2003, pp. 189-190, available at
Jones' Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names states in its entry on Magog: "[English biblical commentator Bishop] Lowth on this place says: 'The Mogul Tatars, a people of the Scythian race, are still called so by the Arabian writers.... By Gog and Magog may most probably be meant the Turks, who were originally natives of Tartary, called Turcheston [Turkestan] by the eastern writers, and whose language is derived from that of the Tartars'" (Alfred Jones, 1997).
Indeed, the Turkish peoples of Central Asia may be included-and are, at the very least, included in the broader alliance, as many of the Eastern Turks appear to derive from Togarmah (see White, p. 198). The Western Turks, as noted in the Bible Reading Program comments on Obadiah, appear to derive from Edom. As also explained there, one such group that appears to have migrated into Central Asia is the Edomite tribe of Amalek (see also White, p. 65). Interestingly, Amalekite kings bore the name Agag (Numbers 24:7; 1 Samuel 15:8) and we later see the enemy in the book of Esther, Haman, referred to as an Agagite (3:1, 10; 8:3, 5; 9:24). Josephus refers to him as an Amalekite (Antiquities, Book 11, chap. 6, sec. 5). Agag is written in the Septuagint as Agog, and there could conceivably be some relation to the name Gog-some, such as Milner cited above, suggesting that Agog is a compound of A (number 1) and Gog (great or high), denoting the ruler (see White, p. 65).
Indeed, it is possible that the names Gog and Magog may be figurative labels on some level in Ezekiel 38-39. Gog basically means "rooftop" and is also thought to mean mountain. As it seems to indicate a peak or highest point, some have viewed it as designating a supreme ruler-a despot or dictator. In that case, Gog of Magog becomes "dictator of the dictatorship." That would certainly fit the description given. Perhaps both the figurative and national meanings are intended.
On the other peoples listed, a footnote to Ezekiel 38:2-3 in The Living Bible states: "The names of Gog's confederates (Meshech, Tubal, Gomer, Beth-togarmah) can be identified as Mushki, Tabal, Gimaraya, Tegerama, peoples who lived in the mountainous area southeast of the Black Sea and southwest of the Caspian." This would place them in the region of eastern Turkey and Armenia, just south of the Caucasus Mountains.
The New Unger's Bible Dictionary states in its entry on Tubal: "Tubal and Meschech, the Tabali and Mushki of the Assyrian monuments, were the representatives of eastern Asia Minor. Their territory originally extended far to the S[outh]. In the time of [Assyrian emperors] Sargon and Sennacherib, the territory of the Tabali adjoined Cilicia [in southeast Asia Minor], while the Mushki inhabited the highlands to the E[ast] of them, where they were in contact with the Hittites. In later days, however, Meshech had retreated to the N[orth], and the classical geographers place the Tibereni and the Mushki not far from the Black Sea." Thus we see a clear northward progression.
Meshech evidently "migrated with Tubal up to the Black Sea and into the Russian plains. Dr. Gesenius [the famous Hebrew lexicographer] wrote in the nineteenth century that Meshech became the Moschi.... They dwelt, he said, in the Moschian Mountains. The Moschian Mountains were the connecting chain between the Caucasus and Anti Taurus Mountains. The Scofield Reference Bible says that the 'reference to Meschech and Tubal (Moscow [the Russian capital] and Tobolsk [in West Siberia]) is a very clear mark of identification.... Milner explains: '...The whole district within five hundred miles of Moscow seems to be saturated with the name of Meschech.' He then the following place names: Moscow; the Moskva River; the Novo-Mosc-owsk on a tributary of the Dnieper; Mosch-Aisk near Borodino; Mosch-ok between Moscow and Nijini Novogorod; Mosch-arki stood on a tributary of the Volga River; Misch-etski stood between Moskow and the Tula...Mesch-a, a branch of the Dwina River; Mesch-Tschowsk near Tula [etc.]...." (White, pp. 178-179).
What about the name Rosh in Ezekiel 38-39? This name is not found in the Table of Nations in Genesis 10. Some translators prefer to view the word as the Hebrew word for "head" or "chief" and link it with the word prince in the verse as denoting "chief ruler" rather than as a tribal name. However, other translators prefer Rosh as a name. Interestingly, the Mitanni kingdom in eastern Asia Minor became known as the land of Rashu, "Rash or Rosh meaning 'blond.' Also, nearby dwelt the Urartians [ancient Armenians].... Their last great ruler was Rusa II who built great cities and huge defences. He established the religious center and fortress of Rusai-urau-tur or Rusa-patari which means 'the small city of Rusa'.... Herodotus wrote that the Matienaians from the land of Rosh were with the peoples of Tubal and Meschech; while Pliny wrote of the Matiani as moving into southern Russia over the Caucasus" (White, p. 267; see also p. 268).
It is commonly believed that the Varangian Rus, Vikings from Sweden, gave their name to Russia. However, "while western scholars accept this as the origin of the Rus, Soviet scholars contend that the Rus were Slavs from the southern steppes.Both are probably correct.... There is no evidence of a tribe from Scandinavia called Ros or Rus. But a tribe of the Antes was known as the 'Ros' and later modified to 'Rus' which resided along the river Ros, a tributary of the Dnieper in the southern Ukraine, just north of the Black Sea" (White, pp. 268-269).
So far, then, we have an alliance stretching from Russia and Turkestan in Western Asia to Mongolia and China in the Far East. Are other eastern peoples listed in Ezekiel 38-39?
Notice the listing of Gomer. This name has caused a lot of confusion as the ancient people near Armenia known as the Gimirrai or Cimmerians migrated around both sides of the Black Sea into Europe-becoming the Celts. For this reason, many equate Gomer with Europe. But the Gimirrai or Cimmerians who migrated into Europe were actually the people known to the Assyrians as Bit Khumri, the "house of Omri"-that is, the northern tribes of Israel (once ruled by the dynasty of Omri), who were taken captive to northern Assyria.
The actual people of Gomer (that is, of Japheth's son Gomer), migrated not to Europe but in the exact opposite direction-to southeast Asia. "Gomer gave rise to the Siamese [Thai], Burmese, Indonesians, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians who all have the same sub-racial anthropological classifications.... The Cambodians' real name is the Khmer which is very likely derived from Gomer. Similarly, one of the regions of Burma is known as Khemarata. Also, Kamara was the original name of Sumatra.... We also find the area of Kemarat in Thailand and the Gimaras island in the Philippines. Given the aforementioned, it is highly likely that these place and ethnic names are ultimately traceable back to Gomer. While it is impossible to prove, it is most likely and should be included in our list of strong probabilities" (White, p. 194).
Consider next the people of Gomer's son Togarmah, who appears, as noted earlier, to be the progenitor of some of the peoples of eastern Turkestan. "The name may be preserved in the E[ast] Cappadocian city of Til-garimmu, listed in the Assyrian records" ("Togarmah," New Unger's Bible Dictionary). This location was in what is now central Turkey.
The Hittite name, given above in The Living Bible footnote, was Tegerama. The people of this region "lived on the border with Tabal. Other names for this people were Tegaram a Tilgarimma, Trochmi and Trogmades. The Tegarma or Tegarama migrated from Cappadocia into Armenia.... From there they moved into Turcoman territory (Turkistan) a possible derivation of Tegarama. In Turkistan, among the tablelands of Pamir, rose a great mount, Tagharma.... These were the Mongoloid peoples of the eastern division of the Turkic peoples of Central Asia" (White, p. 197).
An apocryphal Hebrew work known as the Book of Jasher, though contradictory of Scripture in a number of regards, may nevertheless contain some accurate historical traditions. It states that "the children of Tugarma are ten families, and these are their names: Buzar, Parzunac, Balgar, Elicanum, Ragbib, Tarki [another possible origin of the name Turk], Bid, Zebuc, Ongal and Tilmaz; all these spread and rested in the north and built themselves cities" (10:10).
"Among the sign-posts indicating where Togarmah settled we find: Tagarchi in eastern Turkestan; Tigranoama in eastern Turkey; Tagarma mountains in eastern Turkestan; the city of Tagarma in western China; Taganrog, Tigeretsk Mountain, Togur town, Turgai province and Turgins, a town in Siberia; many Uighur peoples may be a derivative of Togarmah.
"Tradition speaks in terms of a certain son of Japheth known as Tork [Togarmah or Tarki?]. He in turn had a son Taunak Chan. He was in turn succeeded by Jelza Khan, Dibbakui Khan, Kajuk Khan and Ilingeh (or Alanza) Khan. Ilingeh Khan in turn had two sons: Tatar Khan-progenitor of the Tartars; and Mongul Khan-progenitor of some of the Mongols or Moghuls" (White, pp. 197-198).
If these people did indeed migrate to eastern Turkestan and then up into Siberia and Mongolia, as appears likely, that would certainly fit the biblical description of "the house of Togarmah from the far north" (Ezekiel 38:6).
The only ones left to identify in Gog's confederation are "Peras, Cush and Put" (Ezekiel 38:5, The Living Bible). Peras is correctly translated in the NKJV and other versions as Persia. Persia is modern-day Iran. The descendants of the ancient Persians may still be found in their homeland of Iran. They can also be found, as noted in the Bible Reading Program comments on Isaiah 21, in parts of Eastern Europe and of India.
What then of Cush and Put? The NKJV and other translations usually render these as Ethiopia and Libya. Cush and Put (or Phut) were, according to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10, sons of Ham, father of many of the dark-skinned people of the world. Cush, it is generally acknowledged, became Ethiopia and other black peoples of East Africa. And the people of Put were indeed the ancient Libyans, whose descendants may be found throughout black Africa (see White, pp. 89-97).
Yet these two would seem to be the odd men out in this prophecy, being African while all the rest of the confederation is Eurasian. Indeed, the alliance thus far appears to include all of Asia north and east of the Euphrates River except for most of the people of the Indian subcontinent. However, when we better understand the identity of Cush and Put, we can see that the people of South Asia are not left out at all (and that the African branch of these peoples are probably not intended by the prophecy).
Concerning the identity of the people of India, 19th-century author George Faber wrote: "Their military nobility is acknowledged to be of the same family as the Sacas or Chasas, who maintain that their great common ancestor was Cusha or Cush... But we read in a special manner of two lands of Cush, the Asiatic and the African. These were by the Greeks called the two Ethiopias...but by the Hindoos [Hindus], as by the sacred writers, they are denominated the land of Cush within and the land of Cush without" (The Origin of Pagan Idolatry, 1816, qtd. by White, p. 99).
In Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, author Martin Bernal writes: "The tradition of two Ethiopias is much older than [the 5th-century-B.C. Greek historian] Herodotus. In the Odyssey [of the Greek writer Homer], the Ethiopians are described as dwelling 'sundered in twain, the farthermost of men, some where Hyperion [the sun] sets and some where he rises.' Thus, there were Black men, Aithiopes...from Western Libya (Africa) to Eastern Mesopotamia" (qtd. by White, pp. 100-101).
Those on the east of Mesopotamia evidently migrated further east, giving their name to the Hindu Kush Mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. "A few other tell-tale signs of the movement eastwards of the sons of Cush include a land called Kushian, in modern Pakistan. Just to the north of India also lay the land Kashgana. And in the south of India ran a river called Kishna. All of these names are variously derivatives of 'Cush'" (White, p. 102). Thus, many of the dark-skinned people of the Indian subcontinent are evidently Cushite.
Regarding the people of Put or Phut, historian George Rawlinson wrote: "This term is obscure.... In most {scriptures} Phut is joined with tribes which are distinctively African; but in two of them (Ezek [27].10, and [38].5), the accompanying nations seem to be Asiatic. The explanation of this may possibly be that, as there were two Cushes, so there were two Phuts, one Asiatic, and the other African" (qtd. by White, p. 97).
The eastern branch of Put "may have migrated from the east Mediterranean region as this is where anthropologists trace the northern Indians to. All one can say is that large parts of India were known as Rajputna (modern Rajasthan state). Rajputna was a group of princely states ruled over by a warrior-caste called the Rajputs (meaning 'chief of Put' or 'chief over Put'). In northern India, near Bhutan, we find the town called Panta, later Patali-putra, the capital city of Maghada State. The Rajputs and others drove the Dravidian Cushites into Central and Southern India. Those Phutites which settled in Central India mixed with the Dravidians. In the east some mixed with the Mongoloids" (White, pp. 97-98).
So rather than present-day Ethiopia and Libya in Africa, it appears much more likely that Ezekiel 38:5 is speaking of the people of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.
Consider then: the vast hordes of India, China, Indonesia, Russia, Turkestan and more combined-an unimaginable force and staggeringly formidable foe to be sure...
But no match at all for Almighty God.

When Will Gog's Forces Invade and Be Destroyed? (Ezekiel 38-39)

We have already seen that Ezekiel 38-39 is a prophecy of the latter days (38:8, 16). Yet where does it fit in the march of end-time events?
Some, thinking the Israelites brought out of the nations and back to the Promised Land in Ezekiel 38:8 is referring to the Jews who have returned to the land during the past century, conclude that this prophecy concerns an invasion of the modern Jewish state of Israel prior to Christ's return. But this view simply does not fit the picture here. The returned Israelites are described in this prophecy as dwelling in peace and safety-in a "land of unwalled villages...without walls, and having neither bars nor gates" (verse 11). While modern cities don't normally have defensive walls, the image here is mainly a figurative one-of living in complete peace, free from invasion or harm. And that certainly does not describe the modern Israeli state. Israel today is constantly under grave threat from hostile neighbors and from terrorists within. In fact, the Israelis are currently building an actual wall or security fence to protect them against Palestinian suicide bombers.
Neither can the prophecy refer to, as some assume, the gathering of forces at Armageddon referred to in Revelation 16 and their destruction in Revelation 19. There is some parallel symbolism, as the sacrificial feast of fallen troops given to birds and beasts is found in both Ezekiel 39 and Revelation 19. However, similar imagery is also used of the defeat of Egypt, as we will next read in Ezekiel 32:4-5. Moreover, the people of Israel will by no means be dwelling safely as the gathering at Armageddon occurs, with the forces of the European-centered Beast power, end-time Babylon, still occupying the Holy Land. And having just experienced the Great Tribulation, with the cataclysmic Day of the Lord still ongoing, the Israelites will not yet be enriched with "livestock and goods" (compare Ezekiel 38:12).
Considering these factors, the only time that fits what is described is the period after the return of Jesus Christ. When He comes, He will defeat Israel's enemies and gather those who are left of all Israel in the Promised Land, where they will at last dwell in peace and safety under His rule.
As that stage of Christ's reign will last 1,000 years (the Millennium), during which time Satan the devil will be imprisoned (Revelation 20:1-6), the question now becomes: At what point following the commencement of the Millennium will the fulfillment of Ezekiel 38-39 come to pass?
Some think it comes at the end, when there definitely will be a march to battle by Gog and Magog. Revelation 20:7-9 states: "Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them." It is also claimed that because armaments such as shields, bucklers, bows, arrows, javelins and spears will be able to be burned for seven years (Ezekiel 39:9-10), this must indicate not modern weaponry but wooden implements-fashioned by people at the end of the Millennium who will be without military technology and hardware.
But there are problems with this view. For one, Gog and Magog in Revelation 20 are said to be from the four corners of the earth and therefore apparently represent people of all nationalities. In Ezekiel 38, it is clear the forces are of specific ethnicities and associated with a particular northern region.
Notice also what God says to Gog in Ezekiel 38:17: "Are you not the one I spoke of in former days by my servants the prophets of Israel? At that time they prophesied for years that I would bring you against them" (NIV). How then could Ezekiel 38 be a postmillennial reference, as none of the prophets appear to have mentioned this in any other prophecy (unless it was simply not recorded)-the only reference being in the New Testament book of Revelation?
(Granted, there do not seem to be any other references to an invasion early in the Millennium either. Yet the destruction of Gog's forces at that point in time may simply be part of the fulfillment of God's general prophecies of calamitous judgment accompanying the Messiah's coming. Indeed, if Gog is a leader of Edom, which seems possible given that the western Turks may have blended to some degree with those of the East and that Gog may be short for Agog or Agag, there may be more specific prophecies regarding him-that is, those that foretell Edom's great downfall at the time of Christ's return.)
A more serious objection to Gog's invasion in Ezekiel being postmillennial is that it evidently occurs soon after the return of Israel to the Promised Land-not after they have dwelt there for a thousand years. Notice Ezekiel 39:7: "So I will make My holy name known in the midst of My people Israel, and I will not let them profane My holy name anymore." Clearly, if the Israelites had been living under Christ's rule for a thousand years at this point, this statement would not seem to make any sense.
Notice also: "So the house of Israel shall know that I am the Lord their God from that day forward" (verse 22). Yet at the end of the Millennium, Israel will already have been living under God's covenant for a thousand years, wherein "no more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying 'Know the Lord,' for they all shall know [Him], from the least of them to the greatest of them" (Jeremiah 31:34). It thus seems to make more sense to view verse 22 as applying to a time early in the Millennium. (It's interesting that up to this point, many Israelites are still confused about the identity and character of Jesus Christ and the unlimited extent of His power. It appears that up to this time they have not yet fully and reverently submitted to His rule.)
By the end of the Millennium, the gentiles too will know the Lord-indeed, they will know Him throughout most of the Millennium, for of Christ's 1,000-year reign we are told that "the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea" (Isaiah 11:9). And yet Ezekiel 38-39 presents the defeat of Gog as resulting in the gentiles coming to know God. It appears, then, that the defeat of Gog described in Ezekiel must come during the early part of the Millennium.
Further, God says that in the wake of Gog's defeat "the Gentiles shall know that the house of Israel went into captivity for their iniquity" (39:23)-that is, this is the point at which the nations would come to understand it. "Then," He continues, "they shall know that I am the Lord their God, who sent [the Israelites] into captivity among the nations, but also brought them back to their land...And I will not hide My face from them anymore; for I shall have poured out My Spirit on the house of Israel" (verses 28-29). Again, it seems obvious that this is describing events that take place shortly after Christ's return.
Indeed, the arrangement of Ezekiel's final chapters may have some bearing here. God spoke of giving His Spirit to His people after the return of Christ in Ezekiel 36. Ezekiel 37 continues on that theme. Though it briefly flashes forward to the period after the Millennium to show that even all the Israelites who have died will ultimately receive the same opportunity, the story flow then returns to the beginning of the Millennium, when the nations of Israel and Judah are at last fused together as one nation. Continuing with that flow, it would appear that the fulfillment of Ezekiel 38-39 will come next in time order-followed by that of chapters 40-48, concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its temple and the reorganization of the Promised Land, events that will also transpire early in the Millennium.
Of course, many of Gog's forces will evidently be destroyed when Christ first returns. For Revelation 16:14-16 says that "the kings...of the whole world" will gather at Armageddon for the "battle of that great day of God Almighty." Yet, understanding the fulfillment of Ezekiel 38-39 to come early in the Millennium, it is evident that only part of Gog's army will be present in the Holy Land to be destroyed at Christ's coming. It seems likely that vast numbers will yet be stretched across Eurasia-apparently what remains of the 200-million-man force described in Revelation 9. Sometime after Christ smites the forces gathered against Him (which, again, would necessarily include only part of Gog's forces), perhaps even a few years later, the remainder of Gog's forces then marches down for the onslaught described in Ezekiel. (This is consistent with the fact that when Jesus returns, He will not bring the entire world into instant compliance with His way. Rather, Isaiah 2:2-4 and Zechariah 14:16-19 demonstrate that there will be a period of bringing the nations into line through both instruction and disciplinary measures.)
What then of the seemingly archaic military equipment? Certainly ancient weaponry has been used in other end-time passages to represent modern war implements. Yet does the fact that these armaments are used as fuel for fire for seven years mean none of them can be metal or modern? Many guns and rifles, and most notably the AK-47 assault rifle so popular in third world nations, have wooden stocks. Consider also that there are many flammable elements to even jeeps, tanks and jet planes-not least of which is their fuel. The fuel and reserve fuel for thousands upon thousands of military vehicles is staggering to contemplate. Small quantities of material can be used as a fire starter-and there would be vast quantities available. Furthermore, consider all the possessions of an enormous military force on the move-this one perhaps two thirds as large as the current U.S. population. There would be an unimaginable amount of burnable material for the few million Israelites then living in the Promised Land. Also, perhaps new technology, whether invented by man or given by God, could allow even metal to be converted to usable energy.
Of course, it should also be mentioned that a vast Eurasian army would have not only well-trained troops with sophisticated equipment but also huge numbers of poorly outfitted infantry and cavalry. Among hordes of Chinese peasantry and third-world Muslim jihadis, it would not at all be surprising to find large numbers of wooden spears, clubs, crossbows, wood-handled machetes and sabers-even hoes and pitchforks.
So if it is describing a later episode than Ezekiel 38-39, why does Revelation 20 mention Gog and Magog? As already noted, these names seem to be used there in a representative sense for a Satan-led force coming from all nations at the end of the Millennium. It may be that the great invasion of Gog and Magog that occurs near the beginning of the Millennium is being viewed as a forerunner of the postmillennial invasion. The first was a multinational force. The later will be as well-though encompassing even more nations. It may even be that Gog and Magog will constitute the largest portion of this final rebellious force. Some, it should be noted, see numerical significance to the use of Gog and Magog in Revelation, explaining that the words numerically add up to 70, a number the Jews see as representative of all nations (as 70 nations are listed in the Table of Nations in Genesis 10). Or given that Gog and Magog can perhaps mean "dictator" and "dictatorship" respectively, perhaps that is the parallel. In any case, the invasion of Ezekiel 38-39 does not appear to be the invasion of Revelation 20, though there is apparently some tie between them, if only a figurative one.
By the defeat of Gog's forces, God says He will set His glory among the nations-they will know His great power and majesty. The Israelites will come to know Him as their personal Savior and Protector. And the gentiles will see that as well-leading them, at last, to desire to become God's people too.

The Logic and Risks Behind Russia's Statelet Sponsorship

A timely post from about Russia. This follows this post about Mizzou.

You can follow me here.

The Logic and Risks Behind Russia's Statelet Sponsorship

By Reva Bhalla
Mother Russia can be quite generous when it comes to her collection of statelets. In the early 1990s, when a broken Russia had no choice but to suck in her borders, a severely distracted Kremlin still found the time and money to promote and sponsor the fledgling breakaway territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia and Transdniestria in Moldova. And as Russia became more economically coherent over the years, the number of Russian troops in these territories grew, and a bigger slice of the Russian budget was cut out to keep the quasi-states afloat.
These post-Soviet statelets have a good deal in common. They are all tiny — South Ossetia is roughly 3,900 square kilometers (1,500 square miles) and has about 40,000 inhabitants, Abkhazia covers 8,500 square kilometers and its population is about 240,000, and Transdniestria is 4,100 square kilometers and has a population of 555,000. They are also all economically isolated, effectively run on black and gray economies, and are largely dependent on Russia's financial largesse for survival. Most important, from Russia's point of view, they each occupy strategic spaces in the post-Soviet sphere where Russian troops and thus the potential for further intervention can apply acute pressure on Georgia and Moldova should they draw too close to the West. The presence of Russian troops in these breakaway territories forms the tripwire that any Western patron will be wary to cross when it comes to defending those countries in their time of need. This, after all, is the true deterrent value of statelet sponsorship.
But Russia's strategy has also gotten to be a lot more burdensome and much more complicated in recent years. In addition to readopting Crimea (covering 26,000 square kilometers with a population of 2 million), Russia has added to its basket of statelets the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic (16,000 square kilometers collectively with a population of 1.5 million and 2 million, respectively) in eastern Ukraine. Though exact figures are hard to come by, various compiled estimates show Russia has annually been injecting about $300 million into Abkhazia and at least $100 million into South Ossetia and Transdniestria each to finance their annual budgets, provide cheap fuel, pay pensions and so on. In addition, Russia has allocated at least $2.42 billion in 2015 to support Crimea (not including military costs) and, according to a report written by Higher School of Economics analyst Sergei Aleksashenko, Russia has allocated at least $2 billion in the federal 2015 budget to sustain its military support in eastern Ukraine, a figure that continues to grow.
And the list is only getting longer. As the world has observed in recent weeks, Russian military support for Syrian loyalist forces in the coastal Alawite enclave of Latakia has dramatically increased, with all signs pointing to a long-term stay. Knowing that any negotiated settlement is likely to fall apart in the end, the Russian plan is to help Syria's Alawites carve out a de facto state. Meanwhile, back in the Caucasus, the long frozen conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh may also be taking a significant turn in the coming months. We see growing indications that Russia and Azerbaijan may be collaborating to shake up the status quo between Azerbaijan and Armenia, with Russia readied to send in peacekeepers and stay for the long haul in a bid to tighten its grip in the region.

From eastern Ukraine to Alawite Syria to Nagorno-Karabakh, Russia appears to be making a conscious effort to widen its footprint in strategic spaces. This will be a pricey endeavor, but the geopolitical logic behind these moves is not lacking.
Whether strong or weak, capitalist, communist or tsarist, Russia will be compelled to anchor itself to natural geographic barriers for its own security. In eastern Ukraine, the natural Russian extension is to the Dnieper River, and short of reaching that river, Russia will try its best to use the separatist regions to both undermine Kiev and create an imperfect buffer against NATO's growing involvement with Kiev. The Crimean Peninsula reinforces Russia's hold on its only warm-water base at Sevastopol on the Black Sea, and naval projection on the Black Sea gives Russia access to the Mediterranean. The ports of Latakia and Tartus on the Syrian Mediterranean coast — an Alawite stronghold now depending on Russian aid — gives Russia a physical foothold in the eastern Mediterranean and a platform to influence power plays in the Levant. In the mountainous Caucasus, where Russia has already been strengthening its presence in Georgia's breakaway territories and remains Armenia's only real patron, a developing bargain with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh has the potential to expand Russia's presence even more and thus reinforce a Russian buffer to the south.

A Buffer in Eastern Ukraine

In order of priority, Russia's position in eastern Ukraine comes first. Ukraine, from centuries past to today, forms the soft underbelly of the Russian state that must be insulated at all costs. If Ukraine comes under significant influence or control of a Western power, the Russian southwestern flank will be laid bare. But Russia is not strong enough to anchor itself on the Dnieper River and absorb both the military and economic costs of such an endeavor. So Russia must settle. The best Russia can do at this point is to try to consolidate autonomy for the eastern rebel provinces, using its tight grip over separatist commanders to dial up and down the conflict as the need arises. If Russia feels as though its demands are being ignored when it comes to NATO's buildup, sanctions or the like, violence in eastern Ukraine flares up. Once the Germans and the French get the message and start pressuring Kiev to make certain political concessions, the fighting quickly de-escalates.
This is a pattern that all sides are getting used to, but it is still far from ideal for Moscow. No matter what negotiations are in play, Russia is not about to withdraw its military foothold in eastern Ukraine. At the same time, that military dynamic provides the foundation for a pro-West Kiev to lean on the United States for help in defending itself against a persistent Russian threat. Russia must therefore carefully calibrate its military moves in eastern Ukraine, making clear that any Western push would risk a direct confrontation with the Russians, but also not going far enough to where its actions compel a U.S. response that could cause the Russian buffer to recede even more in the end.

Preparing for an Alawite Statelet in Syria

Russia's moves in Syria are deeply intertwined with this dynamic in Ukraine. Even as Russia is locked into a long-term tug-of-war with the United States over the former Soviet rim, Moscow needs mutual areas of interest on the periphery to shape a dialogue with Washington. The Russians see the conundrum the United States is in, trying to fight the Islamic State with the help of regional powers while also trying to avoid the messier process of wholesale government change. Since early this year, Russia has been expending considerable effort to try to cobble together a negotiation that would outline the shape of a post-Bashar al Assad state, making itself appear as an indispensable partner to Washington when it comes to finding an end to the civil war. The United States needs this negotiation, and it needs the backers of the al Assad government, Russia and Iran, to bring the loyalists to the table. The more the United States depends on Russia to facilitate the negotiation, so goes the Russian logic, the more leverage Moscow has to negotiate limits on Western encroachment in Russia's immediate backyard.
But Russia is also not under any illusions when it comes to bringing peace to Syria's warring factions. Any negotiation is doomed to fail so long as the more intractable and competent rebel factions prefer the battleground to the negotiating table. Russia's strategy thus comes in two parts — it must create a credible basis for a negotiation over Syria that it can use as leverage with the United States, but it must also prepare for the worst to protect its position in the eastern Mediterranean for when that negotiation inevitably falls apart. Russia's substantial military buildup at the ports of Latakia and Tartus on the Alawite coast in recent weeks, to go along with its existing naval depot at Tartus, speaks to both of these objectives.
For the Syrian government to be comfortable entering negotiations, it needs to first feel secure in its core territory, running from the south through Damascus up through Zabadani and parts of Homs and Hama to the Mediterranean coastline. This is a plan that Russia and Iran are working closely together on. (Qassem Soleimani, an Iranian major general and the commander of the Quds Force, is rumored to have traveled to Moscow earlier in September to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu to discuss the implementation of this strategy.) A look at the satellite imagery of Russia's buildup so far shows airfield construction, possible control towers and housing for troops. Russia appears to be building up the logistical capability to stage aerial assets, such as fighter jets and helicopters, to help reinforce the Alawite statelet. Stratfor sources have indicated that Russia's military buildup in Syria so far has cost around $500 million, sourced from the military budget of Russia's Black Sea command, while the military equipment Russia is deploying to Syria remains under Russian control. In essence, the Russian-Iranian plan enables the Alawites to enter a negotiation on a stronger footing, but also with the security that they will have a de facto Alawite state to fall back on as the Syrian state formally fragments with time.

A Shake-Up in the Caucasus?

Further under the radar, we can see Russia's strategy in the Caucasus starting to evolve after more than two decades of frozen conflict between the former Soviet states of Azerbaijan and Armenia over the tiny enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. Nagorno-Karabakh (4,400 square kilometers and now a majority Armenian population of around 150,000) has been under the de facto control of Yerevan since a 1994 cease-fire ended the war between the two foes. Economically isolated, Armenia hosts some 5,000 Russian forces and sits firmly under the Russian security umbrella, lacking alternative patrons. In contrast, Azerbaijan, far less geographically constrained and endowed with energy resources, likes to keep its options open, always opting for a balance between the West and its former Soviet roots. That said, Azerbaijan and Russia have been a lot cozier than usual in recent months, raising questions in our mind whether Moscow has enticed Baku with an offer pertaining to the fiercely nationalist topic of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Azerbaijan is fed up with negotiations mediated by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and wants to see if it can put its years of military preparations to work to retake the territory. Armenia, occupying the territory's high ground and thus holding the strategic advantage over Azerbaijan, would obviously prefer to keep the status quo. The only way Armenia would likely be forced to renegotiate terms on Nagorno-Karabakh is if hostilities resumed and Russia, Armenia's sole patron, were to play a dominant role in mediating their end. It is little coincidence that the Armenian rumor mill has been buzzing with speculation that Russia and Azerbaijan are developing an understanding that would have Russian peacekeepers occupy and neutralize the territory. We are doubtful that this plan could be imposed on Armenia solely through diplomatic means.
While we cannot be sure that this scenario will ultimately play out, we have collected enough clues to date that put a Nagorno-Karabakh shake-up high on our watch list. And with Nagorno-Karabakh on the list of territories up for Russian adoption, Russia's commitment to creating new footholds abroad has the potential to expand even more.

The Costs of Sponsorship

Russia's strategy may not be cheap, but it is entirely rational from a geopolitical point of view. Russia is weakening internally at the same time it is confronting a strong and growing threat from the United States on its former Soviet doorstep. While Russia is still in the game, it might as well create and reinforce as many perches as it can in its near abroad to leverage against the West and maintain whatever influence it still holds in preparation for much more difficult years to come. Thus, the bill that Moscow is footing for its statelets, even factoring in a volatile ruble, may still be quite reasonable from a Russian perspective. Operating from a low and still rough estimate, we can assume that Russia is spending at least $5 billion annually on these quasi-states, which is still less than 3 percent of Russia's 2015 federal budget of $206 billion. This amount does not include the large amount of pre-allocated defense budget that goes into the Ukraine and Syria operations. There is also an opportunity cost to bear in mind. Pre-allocated military resources cannot be redirected to other purposes, such as procurement, training, and research and development unless the defense budget as a whole continues to increase.
However, the costs are not just financial. Nagorno-Karabakh is a tinderbox; once the conflict resumes, it will not be easy to contain. It is a region where both a resurgent Turkey and Iran will try to push back against an overly ambitious Russia. In Syria, the threat of mission creep is also real, since the loyalist government is combating an assembly of Sunni powers with a shared interest to undercut Iran. Moreover, with Russia preparing the ground for stationing aerial assets, it must calculate the risks of operating in a crowded battlespace, with U.S., Turkish, Israeli and potentially other European and Arab coalition partners entering the fray. In Ukraine, just as Russian sponsorship of eastern Ukraine incrementally increases, a U.S. military buildup on Russia's European frontier will grow in kind. Ultimately, this is Russia's backyard, and Russia will be far more constrained than the United States when it comes to this level of competition. A statelet sponsorship strategy can go only so far.

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Thanksgiving vs. Christmas

An interesting article from about Thanksgiving and Christmas. This follows this post about climate change. This follows this post about Star Wars. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
Please follow me here for continued posts.

America just largely ignored its most biblical holiday: Thanksgiving.
Christmas shopping ad campaigns like Black Friday, Cyber Monday, Green Tuesday—even Black Friday Month—dominated advertising and even news coverage at the end of November. But so little attention was given to Thanksgiving.
Some Christians denounce the commercializing of the religious meaning of Christmas, but sadly, they miss many vital points of truth. However, our premise with The Good News magazine is that you don’t have to miss those points!

Three reasons why Thanksgiving is more biblical than Christmas:

1. Jesus Christ did give thanks to God the Father.
When He fed the 4,000 and the 5,000 hungry men plus women and children, Jesus gave thanks and blessed the food (Matthew 15:30-39; John 6:1-14). At the end of His ministry He specifically thanked God for the unleavened bread and wine of the Passover ceremony that commemorated the sacrifice of His own life for our sins (Luke 22:14-23).
The principle of thanking God for all our physical and spiritual blessings and for life itself is woven throughout the Bible. As national holidays America’s and Canada’s Thanksgiving Days are based on honoring the blessings that God has given their people. ( Is Thanksgiving Rooted in a Biblical Festival? )
2. Jesus Christ did not command that His birthday be observed.
Part of developing Christianity decided to observe Christ’s day of birth, but “Christ-mass,” as it came to be called, was not widely observed until A.D. 354! However, Jesus, His disciples and the apostles did not observe His birthday.
Instead of His day of birth, Christ commanded His followers to observe the day of His death—the Passover (1 Corinthians 11:26). Unfortunately, Christianity long ago rejected the Passover and substituted Easter—a day named after and honoring the pagan fertility goddess Ishtar. This is something that Jesus doesn’t approve of!  ( Easter: Masking a Biblical Truth )
3. Jesus Christ was not born on December 25.
Despite the popular idea, the shepherds did not stay out at night with their flocks in mid-winter. It got too cold for that during winter near Bethlehem! Also, the Christmas-observing part of Christianity had no clear idea when He was born, so they suggested dates from all over the calendar during the early centuries after Christ.
However, had they more carefully read the details in the Bible, those early church leaders could have found that although the exact day of His birth is not revealed, Jesus of Nazareth was born in the autumn—not in the winter. ( Biblical Evidence Shows Jesus Wasn't Born on December 25 )
We want to thank you for being a reader of The Good News and encourage you to share it with your friends and family. Keep reading and learning more!

Patriots Should Rejoice As Cruz Tries to Steal Trump’s Thunder on Immigration

An interesting article from about Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. This follows this post about helping Syrian refugees. Remember, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! Also, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
Please follow me here.

Trump and Cruz are friends, but only one of them can be President.Trump and Cruz are friends, but only one of them can be President.

Patriots Should Rejoice As Cruz Tries to Steal Trump’s Thunder on Immigration

Even Donald Trump can’t single-handedly turn Republicans into a party for immigration patriots. But the GOP frontrunner is receiving some support from an unexpected quarter—Senator Ted Cruz. Albeit overshadowed by the Paris bombing, Cruz has suddenly started to sound like Trump when it comes to birthright citizenship, limiting H1-B visas, attacking the Donor Class, and building Trump’s signature wall. Not surprisingly, Trump has even speculated about the Texas Senator as a vice-presidential candidate. [Trump names Cruz when asked about VP spot, By Mark Hensch, Politico, November 17, 2015]Regardless, a process of radicalizing the party is underway that the GOP Establishment can’t control.
Greatly to his credit, Ted Cruz opposed the Gang of Eight’s Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill. But, looked at in more detail, Cruz has a checkered record on immigration, often falling into the cliché of “legal immigration good, illegal immigration bad. His overall position at the beginning of the primary season was distinctly weaker than that of some other candidates. Cruz barely mentioned immigration when he announced his campaign and he has a long record of wanting to boost H1B visas as a handout to the Donor Class.
Unexpectedly, however, Cruz made his move during the most recent Republican debate. As the moderators tried to bait other candidates into attacking frontrunner Trump, Cruz unexpectedly threw down the gauntlet on immigration, blasting any effort to turn Republicans into the “party of Amnesty” and, critically, connecting the immigration issue to low wages.
In the days that followed, Cruz outright switched sides on H1B visas, saying he would halt the program pending the outcome of an investigation into abuse. He also said he would not support any increases in legal immigration because of unacceptably high unemployment [Ted Cruz turns on legal immigration, by Benjy Sarlin, NBC News, November 13, 2015].
While Cruz has largely refrained from attacking Donald Trump, a pro-Cruz super PAC has unleashed an advertising campaign in Iowa savaging Donor Class favorite Marco Rubio for his support of the Gang of Eight bill, which the ad characterizes (correctly) as an “Amnesty scheme” shaped in collusion with Barack Obama [New Radio Ad Hammers Marco Rubio Over Immigration, on Ted Cruz’s Behalf, by Maggie Haberman, New York Times, November 17, 2015]
Cruz has also slammed what he called an “unholy alliance” between lobbyists and financiers and slammed “Establishment Republicans” working for cheap labor [Ted Cruz whips up immigration hardliners at Orlando rally, by Alex Leary, Tampa Bay Times, November 13, 2015]
Even more significant, Cruz has explicitly committed to ending birthright citizenship, bringing up the topic during his stump speeches, and, critically, featuring it in his official platform [Cruz Plan To Stop Illegal Immigration Highlights, Ted Cruz 2016, Accessed November 23, 2015].
For good measure, Cruz also says in his platform “I will complete the wall”—and vows to triple the number of Border Patrol agents.
And especially promising: like Trump before him, Cruz is now reportedly working with America’s Senator, Jeff Sessions, on the immigration issue [Ted Cruz hits GOP field on immigration after debate, MSNBC, November 11, 2015]
Unfortunately, Ted Cruz also still shows some signs of that cynical calculation that so many people decry in him. Recently, he bemoaned certain unnamed Republicans “whose rhetoric is unhelpful with regard to immigration” and lectured “tone matters” [Ted Cruz: “Are there some in the Republican Party whose rhetoric is unhelpful with regards to immigration? Yes,” by Allahpundit, Hot Air, November 23, 2015]. The fact that Cruz was saying this while campaigning in Iowa with Steve King, who has faced the same kinds of accusations as Trump about “tone,” did not go unnoticed.
Cruz is also triangulating against Donald Trump over Syrian refugees, criticizing Trump’s proposed registries (which anyway have been mischaracterized by the Main Stream Media) in a disappointing genuflection to Political Correctness. [Cruz rejects Trump’s support for Muslim registries, by Katie Glueck, Politico, November 20, 2015]
Cruz is now claiming to be opposed to the admission of Muslim refugees while expressing willingness to welcome Christians, a reversal of his previous position [Ted Cruz Last Year: We Should Welcome Syrian Refugees, And We Can Do It Safely, by Nico Pitney, Huffington Post, November 18, 2015]. But considering how Cruz has lectured persecuted Middle Eastern Christians that the real issue was that they were too “anti-Semitic” and hateful, it’s hard not to interpret this as a nakedly political move.
And, ominously, Cruz also has still not closed the door to eventual legalization for illegal immigrants, referring vaguely to an eventual “national conversation” about their status.
To give him due credit, Cruz refers to the need for a mandatory E-verify system and some deportations, which he sensibly says will hopefully lead to “the number of people here illegally drop[ping] significantly [i.e. attrition through enforcement] [Ted Cruz won’t rule out legalization for 11 million in U.S. illegally, Time, November 20, 2015].
Still, Rubio is countering Cruz’s charges of being soft on the immigration issue by saying Cruz and Rubio share “almost all the same views on immigration,” especially on legalization for illegals once the border is secure (whatever that means) [Cruz takes the gloves off, attacking Rubio on immigration, by Katie Zezima and David Weigel, Washington Post, November 12, 2015]. Unless Cruz rules out legalization, at present there’s not much he can say in response besides ending birthright citizenship. This means that he still comes off as having a weaker position than Trump.
Trump himself still seems divided about how to respond. On one hand, he has said they will go to “war” if Cruz keeps gaining [Trump: I’ll ‘go to war’ with Cruz if he rises higher, by Mark Hensch, The Hill, November 16, 2015]. But shortly afterward, Trump actually mentioned Cruz when he speculated about a possible VP pick [Trump names Cruz when asked about VP spot, by Mark Hensch, The Hill, November 17, 2015]
The truth is that Cruz is simply following where Trump leads because The Donald has successfully shifted the Overton Window. One thing the parasitic class of GOP consultants and “strategists” never understand: politics is not just about positioning a candidate in the static sweet spot where he can mediate public opinion. A constituency can be mobilized or radicalized. A skilled leader can shift the terms of the debate. Trump has done just that.
The white base of the Republican Party is actually more militant, dedicated and radical than its putative leaders in the GOP. While the likes of George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, and Paul Ryan served to actually dampen the enthusiasm of their voters, Trump is whipping up their enthusiasm to a fever pitch.
As even the generally-useless George Will has noted, Ted Cruz is implicitly using some variant of the Sailer Strategy to win. Thus he can’t afford to antagonize Trump’s supporters. In effect, he is providing cover for Trump. He is even helping take out Trump’s most dangerous foes, especially Marco Rubio. Cruz’ appeal to evangelicals is also weakening Ben Carson, who is bleeding supporters as Cruz rises [Fox News poll: Trump gains, Carson slips, Cruz and Rubio climb in GOP race, by Dana Blanton, Fox News, November 22, 2015]
At some point, Cruz has to supersede Trump in order to win the nomination. But as even Leftist outlets have observed, because Cruz risks alienating his own supporters, he has to count on Trump imploding. And Trump hasn’t imploded yet. What evidence is there that this will ever happen? [Ted Cruz has a Donald Trump problem: He’s waiting for a Trump collapse that may never happen, by Simon Maloy, Salon, November 23, 2015]
Ted Cruz also has a larger strategic problem. He is running as a “right of the right” candidate who is essentially trying to out-conservative” everyone else. No matter how he triangulates, no one will take Ted Cruz seriously as a moderate. In contrast, Trump is actually growing the party by winning blue collar voters, what used to be called Reagan Democrats. Cruz can trump the Trump when it comes to “movement” credentials, but the white base cares more about trade, immigration, and a larger idea of national greatness. And here, no one can match Trump’s appeal.
As a result, unless Trump manages to inflict a catastrophic injury on himself (sadly, always a possibility), Cruz is limited strategically to serving as Trump’s wingman. By the time Cruz can dispose of Rubio and turn on Trump, it will be too late.
From an immigration patriot’s point of view, Cruz is simply helping to consolidate Trump’s positions on border security, H1-B visas, and birthright citizenship as part of the GOP mainstream.
Only Trump can stump Trump. Barring that, Cruz isn’t a rival.
But nevertheless, whatever his motives, Cruz’s conversion is very good news for immigration patriots—an objective ally in the historic process of turning the GOP from a tool of the donors into the National Conservative party America so desperately needs.
James Kirkpatrick [Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc.

Monday, November 23, 2015

Editorial: Mizzou Counterstrike!


The Group began the counterstrike at Mizzou! This strategy can be used in other trending liberal areas such as Maryland, South Carolina, Minnesota, and California as well as any others you are concerned about!

Last night at the University of Missouri, the campus conservatives were triumphant in the battle for free speech and sanity. Through Young America’s Foundation, Mizzou’s conservative club hosted Ben Shapiro in front of a packed audience (and overflow room), and a massive online audience. Approximately 160,000 people tuned in to watch the event online, in addition to the 400 present in the auditorium and overflow room.
Shapiro knocked down the liberal arguments over “white privilege,” “safe spaces,” and “microaggressions.” The conservative students at Mizzou were inspired to become more active on campus and showed the university that not everyone agrees with the liberal protesters who took control of the campus last week.

If you’re looking to become more active on campus or invite a conservative speaker to your school, here are four lessons you can take from last night’s event at Mizzou.

Lesson 1: There Are More Conservatives on Campus Than You Think
First, conservatives win by being vocal. Last week, the University of Missouri’s campus was taken over by liberal protesters, claiming Mizzou needed to address its “climate of racism.” The vocal minority appeared to be a majority, as conservative students had yet to stage a counter-movement. That all changed last night. For once, the liberal students at Mizzou, and in the audience listening to Ben Shapiro got a taste of what it feels like to be a college conservative: Outnumbered.

Lesson 2: A Handful of Flyers and Tweets Don’t Cut it for Advertising
“Boots on the ground” activism is the way to go. The conservative club at Mizzou worked for hours a day leading up to the lecture, hoping to secure a large audience. They plastered campus with (literally) thousands of posters and passed out hundreds of flyers on campus. They also “chalked” the entire campus, posting quotes like “check you liberal privilege” and “see Ben Shapiro tonight at 6 pm!” When preparing for an on-campus lecture, writing a blog and posting a couple tweets on social media isn’t enough. The Mizzou conservatives proved that this week.

Lesson 3: Call out the Left for their Failed Ideas
Telling the truth always wins. The title of Ben Shapiro’s lecture, “Truth is a Microaggression,” couldn’t be more accurate. Shapiro didn’t silence liberal dissent because he was loud or simply because there was a large audience. He silenced the liberal protesters in the room because he told the truth forcefully and thoroughly.
Lesson 4: Work with YAF!
Finally, we encourage you to work with YAF if you want to fight back on campus. Several of the conservatives at Mizzou attended our Fall Conference at the Reagan Ranch last week, where they saw Ben Shapiro speak. They were so inspired by his talk, and excited to become more active on campus, that we worked with them to stage this event in a matter of six days. We can do the same for you. Contact us today.


ABC TV Show “Scandal” Plays “Silent Night” as Main Character Kills Her Baby in an Abortion

An interesting story from about the TV show Scandal. This follows this post about Bill Gates promoting abortion. For two very interesting books click HERE.
Please follow me here.

ABC’s Scandal just crossed a sickening line in the episode “Baby It’s Cold Outside.” The entire hour was an advertisement for Planned Parenthood, but the absolute worst scene was a montage set to the Christmas hymn “Silent Night,” a song that celebrates the birth of Christ, while main character Olivia Pope (Kerry Washington) has an abortion, killing her and the president’s baby.

Between the execution of a man that opens the graphic clip below, the talk of “soft tissue,” saying family destroys you, watching a doctor take his instruments between Olivia’s legs, and the hint of a smile on her lips at the end, it is a truly vile scene, stomach churning scene.
Eli Pope: “A pressure point, soft tissue, an illness, an antidote to greatness.” You think you’re better off with people who rely on you, depend on you, but you’re wrong, because you will inevitably end up needing them, which makes you weak, pliable. Family doesn’t complete you. It destroys you.
Perfectly enough, Papa Pope’s monologue calling family “a pressure point, soft tissue, an illness, an antidote to greatness,” is exactly what the pro-aborts think a pre-born baby is.
Follow on Instagram for pro-life pictures and the latest pro-life news.
The final scene of the winter finale is of Olivia sitting down, relishing the glass of wine she can now drink, smiling at her Christmas tree, while “Ave Maria” plays.
LifeNews Note: Alexa Moutevelis writes for Newsbusters, where this originally appeared.