What is really happening in Kiev, Ukraine

The following comes from a friend who was born and lives in Kiev, Ukraine. He has asked not to use his name because he could be at risk of attacks by Nazi radicals. This is the name used by Ukrainian Nationalist militias – “Nats” and “Natzis.” This is a real thing despite the incredulous reaction of our media to Putin’s goal of the de-Nazification of Ukraine. The following is shared to give accurate information for those who only hear the reports from CNN and FOX News. It is for the purpose of directing prevailing prayer, not saying which side within Ukraine is right. We should be praying for all involved. ~ Jay Rogers

The Forerunner: What’s your immediate view of everything so far?

A:- I see the agony of the Kiev regime and they care very little about our citizens. They distributed tens of thousands of AK, RPG and hand grenades among people who never touched firearms before, with no mind about criminals, drug addicts and alcoholics among them. All civilians killed within the city of Kiev are victims of “territorial defense” groups. We have information that these armed people are firing each other and at civilians who are suspicious in their opinion. So far, all you have heard about Russian saboteurs in Kiev is a lie. They shoot each other and later claim they neutralized Russian soldiers. Do not believe this baloney – when Russians capture Kiev, you will see and know the truth.

Read more

Understanding the Ukrainian Crisis

After the Bolshevik Revolution, the Donbas region was incorporated into the Ukrainian portion of the Soviet Union. However, its overwhelmingly Russian population and industrial might have made the region a flashpoint of contention.

By Peter Hammond

To view the screen capture video of this presentation click here
To view the video of this presentation click here
To listen to this lecture click here
To see the Power Point of this presentation click here

On the Brink of War
Along with the growing crisis over Red China’s threats to invade Taiwan, the world is facing the first real threat of a major war, possibly even including nuclear weapons, between nuclear-armed superpowers since the Cold War. In early November of 2021, the world was shocked by the sudden announcement of a massive Russian military build-up along Ukraine’s eastern border. The long-simmering territorial dispute over the Donbas, a region in eastern Ukraine that is culturally and linguistically Russian, almost overnight became a potential theatre for a major war between East and West. American and European leaders lined up in support of Ukraine and its president, Volodomir Zhelensky, even as Russia’s President Vladimir Putin drew a line in the sand. Ukraine, Putin insisted, was historically part of Russia’s sphere of influence and could not be permitted to join NATO. The West, in turn, accused Russia of threatening Ukraine’s sovereignty and vowed resolute action against Russia, including possible military involvement, should Putin invade.

Read more

How should Christians view Russia and Ukraine?

I am starting to see more neo-conservatives and Christians supporting NATO’s position on the situation between Russia and Ukraine. A foundational problem is that there is a misunderstanding of the conflict because of the way that news pundits spin it. Although Christians should be patriots and support their country, we should also try to understand the perspective of the patriots of other nations, especially those with a rich Christian history such as Russia and Ukraine. Besides having a majority of Orthodox Christians, the two countries have the first and second largest populations of evangelical Christians in all of Europe.

The Russian Federation has maintained they have legal standing for protecting their own borders from an encroaching NATO military presence – for recognizing the sovereignty of Russians separatists living on Ukraine’s border – for their claim on Crimea’s naval base and territory in 2014 – and for protecting ethnic minorities in disputed territories on the border of Georgia from a mafia-run government in 2008.

Likewise, the United States has made numerous incursions into Latin America throughout our history to protect our military and economic interests, and to liberate nations from oppressive governments. Since the 1950s, the United States has conducted covert operations in the cases of Guatemala (1954), Cuba (1961), Guyana (1961–64), Chile (1970–73), Nicaragua (1981–90), as well as outright military invasions of the Dominican Republic (1965), Grenada (1983), and Panama (1989).

The Monroe Doctrine tells us that the United States is responsible for order in the Americas. Cuba was the Soviet Union’s ally and now maintains that relationship with Russia. The United States has had troops in Cuba since the 1800s at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. There is a military base there and it is U.S. soil. It is perfectly right for the United States to control this base as a matter of security. The Russians have a similar notion that they are the protectors of the Slavic people.

Read more

The Ukraine Crisis: Facts Versus Lies

Let’s look at the media lies and propaganda and contrast it with facts. I write from the worldview of an American Protestant who places his Christian religion above his nationalism.

Since the Soviet empire fell and the various satellite nations of the Eastern Bloc gained their independence, the present Russian Federation, created in 1991, has done nothing to threaten the United States or to compromise its borders. They have not planted military bases near the United States, nor have they posed any threat to our domestic economy. Yes, Russia is competing with the US to provide natural gas to Europe, but they are doing so—ahem—in a capitalist free-market manner. Their product is quicker and cheaper. Remember, it was Germany who asked Russia to build Nord Stream II.

If the question is formulated, “Was the Soviet Union an enemy of the US?” then the answer would be yes. But there is no more Soviet Union, which Reagan accurately labeled “the Evil Empire” with its expansionist military aggression.

Russian president Putin has come under tremendous criticism in his own country for being conciliatory to the US in his public addresses, referencing the US as “colleagues and partners.”

Putin, along with his foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, has always resorted to dialogue and cooperation rather than coercive military action, “foreign aid” bribes, or meddling in the internal affairs of other nations. When dealing with NATO, the foreign policy of Russia toward Ukraine has been strictly defensive. Their time is running out. Just as the United States in the early ‘60s did not want Russian nukes in Cuba, so too Russia does not want NATO military bases and missiles in the Ukraine.

Read more

Is the Russian Invasion of Ukraine “Imminent”?

At the top of the headlines for the past few months, we have constantly heard that the Russian invasion of Ukraine’s eastern border is “imminent.”

Putin has insisted that he is placing troops on Ukraine’s border solely for negotiation that Ukraine never be admitted to NATO and is insisting that NATO allies curtail their military exercises on Russia’s border. Since the 1990s, NATO has routinely run military exercises along Russia’s borders in eastern European nations, while the renewal of nuclear weapons treaties have run into repeated road blocks. He’d also like the Soviet-era the Strategic Arms Limitations Treaties (SALT and SALT II) reinstated. Another underlying strategy is to provide a fail-safe so that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline will open on schedule.

Ironically, it is a foregone conclusion that Ukraine will never be a NATO member because most member nations do not want Ukraine for various reasons. Everyone involved with the negotiations knows this. In the time of the Soviet Union, NATO guaranteed certain security measures along the bordering eastern bloc countries. With the dissolution of country in 1991, NATO reneged on those guarantees while continuing to view the Russian Federation as though it poses the same threat. Putin now wants the security measures reinstated and to move forward with energy supply and better trade with Europe. Short term nuclear missile limitations are in everyone’s best interests. There is no reason that the negotiations Putin has demanded on these central concerns should not go forward.

Read more

The Russia-Ukraine Conflict: One Ukrainian Christian's View

As a short term missionary who founded several media projects in Russia and Ukraine, I have spent a total of several months in both countries on 12 trips. A good friend of mine and co-worker who was born and lived in Kiev his entire life has written the following. ~ Jay Rogers

National Reserve of Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, Kiev, Ukraine

KIEV, Ukraine – In my opinion, all Russia wants is to preserve the situation with its security on the same level as was guaranteed in the 1970s and 1980s. Namely, NATO nations and Russia will not place nuclear weapons near each other’s borders. Putin wants to reinstate the SALT I and II Agreements on short and mid-range missiles, counter-missile defense, and stop further NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia.

In addition, something that might amaze Americans, is that Russia wants the Ukraine to be a truly independent and friendly neighbor country with strong trade ties – not a poor, hostile state at their fence – not a nation that is only alive because of constant IMF loans – not a nation that harbors 15 U.S. biological laboratories near Russia’s borders, which make (God knows what?) since 2003.

Americans ought to know that Ukraine is totally dependent on Russian coal (used locally to generate electricity) and direct electrical power from Belorussia and Russia. Ukraine imports near 40% of its gasoline and 70% of diesel fuel from Russia and Belarus (made of Russian oil), not to mention uranium for local nuclear power plants.

Russia wants Ukraine to be something like Mexico or Canada is to the United States, not an enemy allied with the Cold War organization NATO. It’s that simple. They also want the United States to stop fueling anti-Russian coups in Ukraine (such as the so-called “Maidan” movement here, although the west called the coup of 2014 the “Dignity Revolution”). Putin also demands some other concessions – nothing special or unreasonable.

Read more

Daniel 12 in Preterist Perspective

Does Daniel 12:2,3,12 refer to the General Resurrection and the Final Judgment?

While the allusion to Daniel 12:1 in Matthew 24:21,22 strongly points to a fulfillment by AD 70, the next two verses in Daniel 12:2,3 seem to refer to the General Resurrection, the Last Judgment and the Everlasting Kingdom. In fact, Daniel 12:2,3 is one of the most frequently used proof texts for these eschatological events. This is certainly one of the most difficult passages in Daniel to interpret from a preterist perspective.

Does Daniel 12:1 speak of events in the first century only to jump thousands of years in the future to speak of events at the end of human history in Daniel 12:2,3?

If we look at how Daniel uses parallelism throughout the chapter, it becomes apparent that the purpose is not to point to a General Resurrection, but to say that the prophecy would be fulfilled long after Daniel had died in the “end of days.”

In short, the passage shows that Daniel and the Jews of that era certainly believed in General Resurrection and a Final Judgment, and the language does refer to these two great events that are yet in our future. But the allusion to a final Resurrection and Judgment is used to delineate the “wise” from the “wicked” – between those who would “understand” the prophecy and receive their inheritance of everlasting life – and those who would not understand and suffer “everlasting contempt” at the Final Judgment. The confusing portion from a preterist viewpoint is the elaboration on what will happen “at that time,” which then speaks of the dead awakening.

Read more

Personhood Florida and Abortion Abolition

Author’s note: I am writing this as the director of The Forerunner and president of Personhood Florida Education. This is not an “official” statement from any Personhood group. I do not speak for the national groups, Personhood USA or Personhood Alliance. That being said, I have spent countless hours speaking to the founders of both of these organizations. I believe I am representing their views accurately, although I need to emphasize that I cannot technically speak for them.

Please also see the links for The United States of America 2.0: The Great Reset. This is short primer on doctrine of nullification, which has been one of the foundational tenets of Personhood movement since its beginning. You may either order copies or I have posted all the articles that make up the booklet online for free.

Book

The United States of America 2.0: The Great Reset

Jay Rogers

Revival, Resistance, Reformation, Revolution
An Introduction to the Doctrines of Interposition and Nullification

In 1776, a short time after the Declaration of Independence was adopted, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin were assigned to design an official seal for the United States of America. Their proposed motto was “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God”. America owes its existence to centuries of Christian political philosophy. Our nation provided a model for liberty copied by nations the world over.

By the 21st century, we need a “Puritan Storm” to sweep away the Hegelian notion that the state is “God walking on earth.” We need revival and reformation in full force to vanquish the problems that plague us as a nation — from government controlled healthcare — to abortion on demand — to same sex “marriage.” This booklet gives a primer on our founders’ Christian idea of government and examines how the doctrine of nullification was woven into the Constitution as a safeguard against federal tyranny. It concludes with the history and theology of civil resistance. A Second American Revolution is coming with the Word of God growing mightily and prevailing! (Acts 19:20).

Read more

What is Personhood?

Personhood stands for the total abolition of abortion with no exceptions.

In fact, we should state at the outset that you cannot stand for Personhood without standing for the complete and immediate abolition of abortion. One naturally flows from the other.

Not only does Personhood embrace the idea of the immediate abolition of abortion, it goes far beyond that to include many other sanctity and dignity of life issues. Personhood advocates ought to endorse any and all bills and amendments to state constitutions that are in line with the goal of recognizing and protecting the God-given right to life of all human beings.

Read more

The Florida Personhood Act

The following is proposed legislation that Personhood Florida will be submitting to our state representatives, senators and governor. We hope to find sponsors for this bill among the many legislators who have endorsed Personhood. The language of the bill is short and to the point. We begin by addressing the necessity of state nullification of wrongly decided federal court cases, such as Roe v. Wade. More state legislators are warming to the idea of using the 9th and 10th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution to ignore or defy Roe. The rest of the bill is simple and says nothing beyond what can be drawn out of the language of our proposed Personhood Amendment. We will first ask those legislators who endorsed the Personhood Amendment to sponsor this bill. The Florida Personhood Act would supersede all previous inconsistent and contradictory provisions that would then need to be struck from the code of laws. We see sponsorship of this bill as a necessary first step to get legislators on board with Personhood language as part of our Florida statutes.

A bill to be entitled “The Florida Personhood Act” to amend the code of laws of the state of Florida

The God-given right to life of every human being at any stage of development shall be recognized and protected. This provision shall be deemed to supersede any other inconsistent provisions.

Read more

Suggested products