Pilate's Governorship may have begun sooner in AD 17 or 18.

Here is an article on the subject arguing it could be the case based mostly on Roman Coinage.

http://www.academia.edu/8296217/The_Chronology_and_Tenure_of_Pontius_Pilate_New_Evidence_for_Re-dating_the_Period_of_Office._Judaea_and_Rome_in_Coins_65_BCE_-_135_CE._The_Numismatic_Circular_pp._1-7._Kenneth_L%C3%B6nnqvist

The above Article is behind a Paywall now, I first read it years ago when it wasn't so my memory of exactly how it made it's argument is foggy. 

There is a potential argument for this model from Josephus I have noticed that I don't think that article included.  Which is notable because something Josephus said is also basically the sole reason for the more common AD 26 date.

In Antiquities of The Jews Book 18. the last thing Josephus talks about at the end of chapter 2 before introducing Pilate in chapter 3 is the Death of Antiochus III of Commagene who died in AD 17.  The first three sections of chapter 3 are stories about affairs when Pilate was Governor, one of them being the Crucifixion of Jesus.

Then section 4 begins a long account of calamities that befell the Jews and Egyptians in Rome.  Tacitus Annals II records those same events, his Annals are explicitly year by year and he places them in AD 19 (the Year of the Consulship of Silanus and Balbus), the same year as the death of Germanicus.

Now the above article stresses how this need not change assumptions about the chronology of The Gospels, they're expanding Pilate's administration not moving it, he was still governor during the Passovers of 27-36, with myself long favoring the Passion being in AD 30.

However I have been flirting with the possibility of moving it down.  It would make my arguments for sooner Nativity Dates (Like 12 BC) even more plausible.  The 12 BC Model would have Jesus turn 30 in 19 and his 30th Year begin in 18. 

Apparently Tertullian had said there were 52 years between the first Advent and the fall of Jerusalem to Titus.  Which points us to AD 18.

What about the 15th Year of Tiberius?  Well I've already said more then once that Jesus Baptism could have actually happened before that, it's simply when John was arrested that happened then, which I do view as possibly merely months or even weeks before the Passover of the Crucifixion.  And it could be Luke was using a source counting from when Tiberius truly became Augustus's Heir and given the Tribunician power in AD 4 which can give us a 15th Year that begins in 18 and ends in 19.

This chronology would also make even more plausible the theory that Simon the Pharisee of Luke 7:36-50 is Simeon Ben Hillel.

This redating of the Crucifixion messes up the 70 Weeks Model I have argued for on this blog.  

Whether or not when the Crucifixion happened should be affected, I am convinced of these arguments for beginning Pilate's Governorship almost a decade sooner. 

Neo-Conservatism was a CIA op

First of all, to debunk the popular Trotskyist origins of Neo-Conservatism narrative, watch these videos from InDefenseOfTooucan, I’m not a Trotskyist but they are a Trotskyist YouTuber I respect.

https://youtu.be/xzM0lUko6hY

https://youtu.be/sgr2jkZxFcM

What most people typically mean when they refer to someone as a “Neo-Con” is the most Hawkish Pro Intervention people in the Republican Party in contrast to the firmly Non Interventionist Paleo-Cons.  Specifically how such Foreign Policy aims were framed during the Cold War and War on Terror.  Anyone meaning anything more specific than that is frankly referring to something that doesn’t even really exist., rarely has anyone actually called themselves a Neo-Con.

The core of Neo-Con ideology was defined by the magazine National Review and its founder William F. Buckley Jr.  Buckley was a Yale Graduate who is known to have worked for the CIA for two years at the start of the 50s including one of those for E. Howard Hunt in Mexico City. 

When he launched National Review in 1955 he made a point to hire intellectuals who were Ex-Communists of some sort.  This is tied to the basis for the Trotskyist claim, but the small number of Trotskyists among them were specifically Shachmanites, a sub group disowned by both Trotsky himself and James P. Cannon and are people who ultimately fell out even with Shachman. What most of them do happen to have in common is having all worked for either OSS or CIA at some point previously as they transitioned into abandoning The Left.  James Burnham is perhaps most important as the Magazine's lead writer on Foreign Policy specifically.  Whitaker Chambers proved a valuable spy because he’d spied for the Soviet Union when he was a Communist, a rare example of that McCarthyist accusation being true (usually Soviet Spies did not publicly claim to be Communists or participate in the CPUSA). 

But going outside the realm of intellectuals.  Allen Dulles and his brother John Foster Dulles were major players in the internal politics of The Republican Party and were in fact key backer of the early rise in political importance of both Prescott Bush and Richard Nixon.

Irving Kristol was part of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a known CIA operation.  However I don’t consider Irving Kristol important actually, he and many others you usually see named as the key Neo-Conservatives are part of the Genre of historical figures whose importance as “behind the scenes” political players is grossly exaggerated while just so happening to be Jews.  However since Kristol is the only person who has ever really self identified as a Neo-Con I couldn’t ignore him completely.